Administrators' newsletter – January 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Red links left after CFDWEdit


Following-up a past discussion here with you, today I came upon a red link left here after this CfD discussion (resulting in move). I place a kind (I hope) word on the closing admin's talk page. However these are extremely hard to find if you don't really walk upon them by luck. Place Clichy (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, another red link found here after this CfD which you closed. I fixed it but did not check all incoming links to all categories renamed in this discussion (there may be a few). Place Clichy (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I claimed to have checked those here but missed that and one other, now fixed. Probably fat finger syndrome, closing two pages at once, or mistaking where I had got to when switching from one gadget to another. It was a long day. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian Empire peopleEdit

That speedy G6 housekeeping was a disaster. Several of those were separate nominations higher (later) up the same page, and others similarly were on other pages. In particular, the descent categories were discussed separately.

I'll relist those that I can find (with a note).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi William, I hadn't realised Timrollpickering was adding categories at CFDW that were still listed in separate open discussions. I spotted that he was doing some moves manually while JJMC89's bot was not working properly, and mopping up some omissions and mis-spellings from Johnpacklambert's main nomination (I had caught some others). I originally had in mind to clean up after that set, and then come back to that December 3 page for those remaining single-category nominations.
I have just reinstated and relinked the CFD banners on the category pages that you relisted.
As it turns out, it is just as well that you did relist some of these cases, because Johnpacklambert mis-linked three of the category pages to his main listing [1] [2] [3] instead of the specific discussions that he had started on those categories, so only people who browse the CFD log pages would have come across the separate discussions in December. Good grief, he even corrected a similar mistake on a later one [4] but still didn't check his work on the others.
Well, all's well that ends well. Thanks for your part in retrieving the situation. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Roman BritainEdit

What next? Nominate Category:Ukraine in the Roman era to renaming to Category:Roman Ukraine? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to undelete and redirect the United Kingdom category to Roman Britain, and link to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_23#Category:United_Kingdom_in_the_Roman_era on both talk pages.
Category:Roman Italy seems to be missing from Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories.
Are Category:Roman Cyprus and Category:Cyprus in the Roman era both needed? If you made one of them, would you consent to a quick merge C2E?
Likewise Syria... maybe more.
Ukraine and others that were not Roman provinces, and have no lead articles, probably make best sense as they are. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that you may have missed the point of my contribution. I was being sarcastic by mentioning the appalling vista of inconsistencies in the parent tree that now exists as a result of the British decision. You say "Ukraine and others that were not Roman provinces"; that's true, but with the possible exception of Cyprus, there is no modern state that is entirely and exclusively within the bounds of a Roman province. Hence the need for 2 tree structures. This was a bad decision IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
And you may have missed WP:OVERLAPCAT, for which this seems to be a prime example.
Thank you for conceding the possibility of merger for Cyprus. This is now nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_1, and so are Syria and Egypt. I think those will be all.
May I suggest you consider WP:DGAF? It's rudely expressed, but I find it helpful. We each express our own point of view, and may consider it reasonable, persuasive, even self-evident. However, sometimes a majority of editors prefer another outcome. For our own state of mind, it's healthy to shrug and move on. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Sound advice. For the record, they do not overlap perfectly; that is the entire reason why it was a bad decision IMHO. As a parting word on the matter, I'll say that a closer has the obligation to regard the quality as well as the quantity of arguments. The decision, and the others that may well be imminent, will leave the parent tree with two confusing naming conventions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:People of the Russian EmpireEdit

Hi. I'm looking at this discussion, which you closed. Something has gone wonky. The subcategories of Category:People of the Russian Empire are now in a mix of formats: some "FOOs of the Russian Empire", some "Russian Empire FOOs", and some (still) "Imperial Russian FOOs". One problem I think is that it appears that Johnpacklambert was creating categories while the discussion was ongoing, and he used "Russian Empire FOOs", perhaps assuming that this would be the result of the discussion. I'm just wondering what the best way forward is. I have linked Johnpacklambert to this conversation; I haven't approached him directly because whenever I do, he is unresponsive to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

They could be nominated C2C for speedy renaming, but I'm inclined to simply add them to the list in that closure and implement them summarily under G6. I've seen and done this before where new sub-cats/siblings were created during a full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What is wrong is the process of changing the nomination last minute when every single person for over a month had supported the nominated form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Johnpacklambert: IYHO. What is questionable is cherry-picking certain precedents for a naming format and listing these in the nomination, without even acknowledging that these are a minority, or stating any rationale for preferring that minority format over the majority format. I allowed five more days to choose between those options, with two pings to all participants, and there was clear majority support among editors for the majority format. – Fayenatic London 17:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • No you abused your position of power to impose what was clearly not supported by the majority. You clearly had an opinion on the matter, so you should have let another administrator do this. I poured my heart and soul into this nomination, and I clearly explained that the shorter more distinct name is preferred. This is a clear abuse of power and is very hurtful to people who put so much work and effort into nominating over 100 categories. I had to go to each of those over 100 categories and individually create notifications of renaming. This took me over a week. This whole process shows continual abuse of power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
        • If I had opined I would have supported 'XXX of the Russian Empire'. It seems to me that US preference is for short names (eg XXX alumni) whereas UK preference is for longer but clearer names (eg Alumni of XXX). My reading of the cfd is that nearly everyone eventually supported (or did not oppose) 'of the Russian Empire'. (I see that Category:Basutoland people and many similar - which ought to follow the parent cat Category:People of the British Empire - was created by Good Olfactory; not sure whether Canada follows US or UK. 'Russian Empire people' ... could there be Polish Russian Empire people? Cowasji Dinshaw Adenwalla is an Indian British Empire person.) 'of the Russian Empire' is quite obviously better. Oculi (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I personally prefer "FOO people" when there is not an acceptable "FOOian people" form (for consistency with the overall by-nationality scheme), but I see no real problem with the other form or the way the discussion was closed. It was a large nomination and it probably would not have been practical to suggest a renomination to choose which form. I would have left it to another day, but that's probably influenced by my preference. "could there be Polish Russian Empire people?" Oculi, see here! At the end of the day, I think it's pretty dumb for category trees to have two separate formats – the US vs. UK thing for alumni is ridiculous. Users should be able to come together on a standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: I have tried talking to you directly, but like Good Ol'Factory said above, I found that you chose not to respond in conversation on your talk page.
You clearly expressed yourself in the course of expanding the nomination, that you were putting in a lot of effort to tag all the "Imperial" pages for renaming to "Empire". Even though your nomination included selective precedents for "Russian Empire people", I had not realised that you were personally invested in that specific naming format – because you had not given a rationale for it as opposed to "People of the Russian Empire" – and IMHO it would have been a waste the work that you had done in tagging all the categories, to have a separate further discussion between those two (even though Good Ol'Factory later suggested that). Hence my "Admin question" at the bottom of that CFD on 20 January.
Once I had initiated the question of choosing between the two "Russian Empire" options in place of "Imperial", I believe I handled and closed it correctly. It was to avoid accusations of WP:SUPERVOTE that I sent the second ping to all participants on 24 January, seeking a consensus one way or the other.
It was only after I raised that option that you stated that you preferred the concise form. Even then, I did not realise that you were personally invested in it.
I am sorry that my conduct turned out to be hurtful to you.
For the record, hundreds of edits were required by Timrollpickering, William Allen Simpson and myself[5] to implement the close, and there is still more to do.
May I respectfully offer you the same advice as I posted above to Laurel Lodged above at 13:00, 1 February 2021? – Fayenatic London 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Johnpacklambert has opposed some of these clean-up changes at WP:CFDS. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: If you are not willing to sustain a conversation on either my talk page or yours, is there another page where you would do so? IMHO the Speedy CFD page is not a suitable venue for it.
Trying to remember where I might have offended you in the past, there was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30#American_and_Australian_people_of_Shanghainese_descent and the two below it, where I asked a question and stated Unless this is explained, the nomination appears to lack integrity and to require relisting with the rest of the hierarchy. You wrote, The above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. I then explained that I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. It appears that you have not accepted my apology, and still consider that I am acting in bad faith.
Those were cases where you were nominating only parts of the relevant hierarchies. In the case of the Imperial Russian people categories, you attempted to nominate the full hierarchy (excluding some military categories, which you explained) and I commend you for this.
I have already explained the rationale for my actions above, and appear to have the support of the community apart from yourself.
If you wish to call my admin actions into question, the process for my recall is User:Fayenatic london/Recall. For the avoidance of doubt, I do count you as a "user in good standing"; if you seriously believe I am acting "out of process… against unanimous consensus", as you wrote at CFDS, find two more who agree with you. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
You never apologized for your personal attack, You have doubled down on justifying your process that destroyed a clear consensus at the 11th hour. If I think a category should not be speedy renamed than i should make that fact public.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I actually had forgotten you were the same thrower of insults who had engaged in those vituperative personal attacks in relation to the descent categories. What I object to is your destruction of a reasonable rename that took me over a week to frame. Other people could have joined in and help me tag all the more then 100 categories involved, but no they just threw up obstructionist garbage as I did so. It took a huge effort to do this, and everyone until just before close had supported the rename. I was not given an adequate chance ever to describe why the final proposals are just horrid and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • John, you like to tell whoever's listening that you are tired of various things, but you are not yet tiring of taking offence where none is intended. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • That is rich, really rich. Saying that someones actions lack integrity is the ultimate in character assasination, and you clearly still think you are justified in treating other people in an abominable and rude matter. What you did was extremely offensive, and you have never apologized for it, only tried to rationalize it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The xxxx alumni v alumni of xxxx is not a different in use in Britain and the US. It is an idiosyncratic difference reflecting the views of a few hard headed editors who pretend that their different views reflect language variation. People who have studied use more broadly have shown that in fact you can find British cities using formations like "Oxford University alumni" this is a case where the variation is a result of idiosyncranies of Wikipedia users that we have falsely allowed to stand because of people being able to hide behind the in this case false screen of English variation, and there being so many categories involved no one has the patientce to create a large scale nomination. Occuli's analysis is flawed. This is not an issue of language variation, it is an issue of personal preference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1780s establishments in BiharEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:1780s establishments in Bihar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Church of England church buildings by city has been nominated for renamingEdit


Category:Church of England church buildings by city has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

re: your edit summary querryEdit

Here. I think first I added the non-existing new category with HotCat, then I created a redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @Piotrus: ah! Simple! I could have checked that for myself. BTW, I have just undeleted the original redirect, so the page history will look different now. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Yemeni Civil War categoriesEdit

The subcategories have been renamed. Are there any other Yemeni Civil War-related categories that need to be renamed? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

  Administrator changes

  Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Odisha categoriesEdit

Odisha was called Orissa until 2011 and your category creations are populating redirects because of the templates - see User:RussBot/category redirect log. Please can amend or replace the templates so they populate the right categories? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I only built some parents above the year categories that were created by user:Johnpacklambert. I'll nominate them for Speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there is no good reason to treat this in the way you are suggesting. Odisha is one place, there was just a change of name. I do not think using to old name for pre-2011 categories is wise. I think we should use Odisha for all categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This is the type of attacks by lazy editors who do nothing but criticize those of us who actually put in the work to create needed categories that makes Wikipedia so frustrating. I have created huge numbers of needed subcategories of various India establishments by year categories, and all you guys can do is attack and criticize. It is so frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll make it a full CFD nomination, with two options. It's now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_9#Orissa_before_2011.
      • For the record, Johnpacklambert, since you raise the subject of lazy editors, a large proportion of your category creations had only one parent, when they should have two or three. I've been fixing your work by using standard templates, and that's how this naming clash came to light. If you were more diligent in parenting the categories you create, you would have discovered the inconsistency, and could have made the nomination yourself. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
      • My oh my, I have never seen that done before – posting pre-emptive opposition on the Speedy page before the Speedy nominations had even been saved! I have moved the comment to the full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I was about to notify you as creator of the Orissa decade categories, but I see you have picked up and commented at the CFD already. – Fayenatic London 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Fayenatic. For the record, I wholly endorse your comments in response to the unwarranted attack on you by John Pack Lambert. If JPL had done a less lazy job, there would be no need for others to clean up after him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: would you be prepared to nest that redirect template in {{LinkCatIfExists2}}? That would then fix {{EstcatCountryCentury}} e.g. at Category:17th-century establishments in Hungary. – Fayenatic London 23:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fayenatic, the tldr is "sorry, but no".
Longer version is I would like to nest it in {{LinkCatIfExists2}}, but I think that would be a bit dangerous because of use cases like {{EstcatCountryCentury}}, which would then be calling {{Resolve category redirect}} over 100 times. The Module:Resolve category redirect opens the category page referred to in order to check whether it is a redirect, which is a high system-load operation. A hundred such operations seems to me to be an excessive server load.
In any case, it seems to me that {{EstcatCountryCentury}} and its cousin {{Century in country category}} are misconceived. The general design of navigation in chronological categories is that used by {{Navseasoncats}} and its offspring on ~686,000 category pages: a top row for navigation to predecessor and successor categories for the same time unit, and optionally a second row for the next-larger time unit.
{{EstcatCountryCentury}} & {{Century in country category}} break that convention in two ways:
  1. they do not have a top row for navigation to predecessor and successor categories for the same time unit
  2. the listings below are for a second row for the smaller time units rater than the next-larger time unit.
The multi-row navbox is also too bulky for a header: it pushes mosts of category's the content listing below the fold.
So the solution I would prefer is to stanbdardise {{EstcatCountryCentury}} and its cousin {{Century in country category}} by ripping out the bulky navbox, and using {{Navseasoncats}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:1917 establishments in Bihar etcEdit


I see that you have (re-)created Category:1917 establishments in Bihar and several other similar categories.

I don't think that Category:1917 establishments in Bihar works as currently constituted. Pre-independence Bihar was neither a state nor a union territory. The history is complex: see Bihar#Colonial_era.

More fundamentally, I think that even if that categ can be fixed, this structure for pre-independent India a bad idea. I am no expert on Indian territorial divisions, but think that dividing up the territory before independence is a very messy and complex business. The various colonists and prices shifted boundaries and merged and divided entries at a ferocious rate. Trying to capture that in establishments categories will be fiendishly complex ... and I don't think we have enough content to justify these splits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: you are probably right, but that argument was not raised at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1, so IMHO this should be taken back to CFD. User:Johnpacklambert has just gone against that specific discussion by emptying Category:1786 establishments in Bihar again without bothering to justify this in the edit summary, so it is high time that the principle was discussed. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
FL, it seems to me to be a very very long stretch to read WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Establishments_in_Sikkim as mandating the creation of Category:1917 establishments in Bihar: there was no entity called Bihar at the time.
Rather than another discussion, it would be much more helpful to simply refrain from creating misconceived categories. And for once, JPL was right: emptying Category:1786 establishments in Bihar: it is an anachronistic nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's sharp. Look, I had just created a category by mistake, meaning to edit one category to remove a red link, but creating a page at that link instead. It's gone now.
It was me that made the nomination to merge these establishments-by-year categories, and I was overridden by consensus, without conditions about the starting date, or exceptions for the 1786 category. Hence my submission to the consensus since then.
@BrunoBauer: as creator of these categories, would you consent to merging pre-independence categories for Bihar (and any similar) to India, without formal discussion? – Fayenatic London 08:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
For the record, rather than wait, JPL has nominated this and sibling categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_15. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Bihar is said by our article to not have existed to 1917. I really think actual parts of India (Sikkim is its own different case) should not have any sub-categories pre-1956. Yes there were states starting in the late 1940s, but their boundaries were very different. The changes since 1956 have been much less complex. Plus, we really do not have enough contents in Category:1955 establishments in India and going back to justify splitting. Many pre-1956 states were non-contiguous units. If you look at the linked discussion the only clear consensus was to keep the Sikkim categories, very little was said about the Bihar ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cemeteries in MauritaniaEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:Cemeteries in Mauritania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Reinstated, thanks. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Canadian provincial politicians by legislative termEdit

Fayenatic, did you intend to delete this category?

On another note, I'm coming across a higher than average number of categories that have been emptied out-of-process. This used to be done by newish editors who saw it as a quicker fix than going through CFD but now I'm finding it's being done by CFD regulars. It's really crazy to nominate a category for deletion at CFD and then empty it...why have editors consider a deletion if you are just going to go ahead and empty the category and have it deleted as a CSD C1? It wastes everyone's time who takes a few minutes to consider whether to support or oppose a nomination if you are just going to go round the consensus process. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Liz: thanks for the pointers. Not sure if you are thinking of this CFD. I remember that JPL has been criticised on the record in some other recent CFDs for removing members, but he did at least offer a justification for those removals case by case.
I looked into a few Empty categories awaiting deletion and found others emptied out-of-process, as you say by longstanding editors. Category:Publications established in 1994 was edited for consistency by BHG, apparently overlooking that it alone had a parent Category:Mass media established in 1994, an undeveloped hierarchy but one that has potential. Then to my greater consternation I found Category:Evangelical Christianity in Myanmar, which was emptied, replaced & tagged for deletion by another luminary rather than renamed… why, may I ask? WP:CUTPASTE still says that "attribution is necessary". – Fayenatic London 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
While you are here, please accept this as notice for speedy deletion of Category:Evangelicaism in Myanmar, + renaming of Category:Evangelicalism in the Ivory Coast to Category:Evangelicalism in Ivory Coast, and forgive my overwriting another cut-&-paste move there. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I screwed that one up. Royally. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Liz:: Another editor is repeatedly emptying certain categories out-of-process, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Empire_of_Austria_(1867-1918). I would appreciate your advice on appropriate action. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Rehashing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 24#South_Slavic_surname_categoriesEdit

Hi. There was a CFD in 2014 that you resolved, so I'm appealing to you - apologies for being such a nuisance :)

In the meantime, we've exposed a bunch of abuse in the related topic area, and it turns out 2 out of the 3 'oppose' !votes there were from users who are permanently topic-banned or who are permanently blocked. The naming of these categories appears to have been a nationalist talking point that they wanted to argue instead of actually being here for the encyclopedia. Also, I had answered and I believe countered most if not all the counter-arguments brought up in the discussion, but this was not apparently discussed in your closing statement.

Would it make sense to change the result to 'no consensus' given all this?

I would propose the same thing again, but am worried that the previous result, as written, without any of this context, might prejudice the new discussion. Inertia is a powerful thing...

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joy: Apologies for the delay. I remember writing a reply, but it must have not been saved.
As that CFD was so long ago, I don't think it's appropriate to change the close. Instead, please ping me when you make a new nomination, and I will state that (as closer) the precedent does not prejudice the new discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Utilizing JJMC89 bot III for emptying categoriesEdit

Hello again, Fayenatic_london,

Another question for you. I don't close CFD cases because I find the process a bit confusing. But when I come across CSD-tagged categories, like Category:African superheroes, or ones created by sockpuppets that were recently deleted, like Category:Lists of palaces by country, I was wondering if I could utilize User:JJMC89 bot III and post them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working so that the categories could be emptied rather than having to handle this manually. I'm not sure when there is not an associated CFD case if the bot will take action or whether it will be confused. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: the first one you mentioned is WP:G4, and I have certainly seen such cases listed at CFDW, using the precedent CFD date as the heading. For others e.g. WP:G5, I think the bot will also handle those, and accepts Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy as the heading. But this is an alternative gadget which is worth knowing about.– Fayenatic London 06:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

  Administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

  Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nataly Dawn's cover of "Hello"Edit

A good way to determine if a song has been released as a single is to check streaming services such as Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, etc.. When I added singles to Nataly Dawn's discography, it was per Spotify. Just because a song gets a music video doesn't necessarily make it a single. But I will say that it can be hard to find sources for some bands and artists. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pop albumsEdit

I think your close covers Category: Pop albums as well, but will leave it to you to clarify/implement this.– Fayenatic London 17:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey ! Long time no talk to : )
Thanks for the head's up. I didn't realize that that cat had later been tagged. I'll clarify the close.
Thanks again : ) - jc37 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure... Oh, you're still doing this talk page cut-paste thing? TBH I never did enjoy that.  :-S
I've put the {{Old cfd}} on the talk page. DYK that is now automated if you use WP:CFDW#Retain? – Fayenatic London 18:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist. I thought retain was just for mass noms. I've been doing a lot of this manually. - jc37 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, again. JJMC89's bot has other improvements too, like merge to multiple targets, and optionally redirecting the old name. See the collapsed sections at CFDW for syntax.
Please could I ask you to leave the line *None currently in each section, hiding it with a <!--, rather than deleting it? This makes it easier to clean up the page when using a mobile device.  Fayenatic London 21:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
lol Didn't know that was an issue : )
Happy to help : ) - jc37 21:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I had to go back to User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive23#Precious to remind myself what this is about! – Fayenatic London 10:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


Hi I'm seeing you don't really understand what you are doing as regards squat categories and to be honest my patience is wearing thin since things started off badly with another user making mass deletion proposals and refusing to engage, then we had a discussion in which a lot of ignorant comments were made ... and my questions were ignored. Now you seem to be making the mistake of assuming Category:Former squats is not a non-diffusing subcategory. This makes no sense, it makes much more sense to have Category:Former squats and Category:Squats in X. I'd ask you to stop making these edits so we can actually discuss it. Mujinga (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not split the discussion over multiple pages. I have copied this to Category talk:Squats and replied there. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Squats in Czech RepublicEdit

Thanks for telling me that there is an informal consensus amongst the regulars for a cut-off of 5 items on categories. I don't read WP:SMALLCAT in that way at all and I gave a rationale for why (for example) Category:Squats in Czech Republic should be kept. I want to discuss that with you before heading to deletion review. Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For reference, this is about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_17#Squatting_by_country.
@Mujinga:, please go on. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
What needs to change is the erroneous appeal to WP:SMALLCAT but I'm not that interested in arguing over categories, seems like a very real waste of time to be honest. To be clear though if you are appealing to a cabal consensus that three categories is too little you should be actually able to refer to policy instead of vague statements Mujinga (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not appeal to an invisible consensus; I closed that discussion according to the very evident consensus that those categories were too small and should be merged.
If it was down to my personal choice, I would keep such categories with three or four members, because IMHO for some topics that size can be useful for navigation (although "See also" links would be an alternative). But when I come to close discussions, I set aside my own preferences, and identify the majority common view that has been expressed in the discussion.
You might have noticed that I added some of the former member pages of "Squats in X" into "Squatting in X", where this resulted in a worthwhile number of pages.
Looking at Category:Squatting by country today, the Turkey category might be rescuable if you can write an article on Squatting in Turkey, but Category:Squatting in Fiji and Category:Squatting in Ukraine do not look as if they can be justified.
When you make categories, please consider what other parent hierarchies they should be part of. I have now put all the "Squatting in X" categories into parent categories by country, either for housing or society. If you think they would all belong in "political movements", please add those parents where they exist. – Fayenatic London 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Category:Squatting in the Czech Republic that's what I was planning to do although categorising things is pretty far down the to-do list. It's a much more elegant solution than dumping items from Category:Squats in Czech Republic into a category of 50+ items.
You told me elsewhere "There is no formal policy identifying 5 as the cut-off for WP:SMALLCAT, but many precedents over the years at CFD have resulted in consensus to merge categories with fewer than five members" - this was something nobody bothered to tell me in any of the discussions and which I see as erroneous appeal to WP:SMALLCAT. If you want to make closes based on that rationale I suggest modifying WP:SMALLCAT so the guideline actually supports the action.
Squatting in Turkey is certainly on the to-do list. Yes I agree on Category:Squatting in Fiji and Category:Squatting in Ukraine
On "other parent hierarchies" I'm not very interested in that and it seems I can leave it to others who enjoy it more. I would ask you in turn to consider adding new categories to relevant wikiprojects as I've done at Category:Squatting in the Czech Republic. Mujinga (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mujinga: you have parented some categories correctly, e.g.[8]. A category "Squatting in X" is an intersection of the topics "Squatting" and "X"; I can't see why you would not be bothered to place a new one within both of those. (As for other potential patents such as political movements or anarchism, fair enough to not worry.)
Please note that articles need to be categorised in the same way. Sometimes a short key is also required. For an example of both, see [9]. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Merging Category:Squatting in Ireland to Category:SquattersEdit

Sorry but that decision makes no sense at all. As I already explained, Category:Squatters covers people. Surely Category:Squatters' movements would make more sense? Mujinga (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Done Thank you Mujinga, I have revised my close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#Category:Squatting in Ireland accordingly. – Fayenatic London 16:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yup. It's almost as if nobody else in the debate (including you) actually looked at the existing hierarchy Mujinga (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

C2C v C2DEdit

I do think that C2C in general will override C2D. In the case of bishops, there is not usually an article 'bishop of X'; more usually there is 'diocese of X' (usually disambiguated), and sometimes 'list of bishops of X'. Beverley is just ridiculous: Diocese of Beverley is the RC one (historical), Bishop of Beverley is the current Anglican one, and there is a current RC titular bishop of Beverley. Oculi (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor not respecting CFDEdit

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I'm not sure what to do about editor Laurel Lodged. For three days, she has been emptying these Austria categories and you can see on her talk page requests from Fram and I for her to revert her emptying out the categories. Instead, she reverted Fram's reversions of her edits. You can see the ones emptied out on last week at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and there are more categories emptied today as you can see at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. I've seen regular CFD editors act in violation of CFD decisions before but it is generally just a category or two, not at this scale. I can spend time tracking down all of the edits and revert them but I don't know that they won't just be reverted back. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

For my reference, user:Fram has now reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Emptying_categories_out_of_process.
Please note, despite the name, Laurel Lodged is male.– Fayenatic London 15:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Squatting in ZimbabweEdit

Please review your close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_17#Category:Squatting_in_Zimbabwe. There are five items for which squatting is covered by WP: DEFINING, namely:

Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • You can't add a paragraph about squatting to an article (eg these edits) and then claim that the property, hitherto completely absent from the article, is defining. Oculi (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Only Marcocapelle bothered to reply in the CFD, but he (correctly, IMHO) stated that this mention of squatting was not defining for Chitungwiza, Mabvuku or Waterfalls, Harare.
    • I have no idea why you now consider the same one-line paragraph defining for just one out of those three.
    • Excluding all three of those articles, then, only four would remain, which is below the threshold of five justified and applied above on that CFD page. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Skipping over Oculi's comprehension fail, there are now five articles, as stated. Feel free to check Chitungwiza again, I do think it's quite clear. Thanks Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, I have no objection to you re-creating the category now that you have developed the article further. I have clarified the close stating that there is no objection to this. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Some missed categoriesEdit

Hi, I'm thinking that this is probably okay with you, but I just wanted to flag for you that I did this. It looks like you just overlooked listing them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened there. Thanks, I'd do the same for you (and indeed, have done). Feel free to notify me in the edit summary if I do it again. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Rcat template redirectEdit

Hi Fayenatic london – in regard to this mention in your edit summary, please note the red link. And thank you very much for the heads up! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, Paine!
I have now asked at Template talk:Old TfD for the root cause (an inadequate template merge) to be fixed. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like that already works. I updated all the talk pages of the templates up for deletion in 2005, and the |discuss= parameter worked just fine. So not quite sure I understand the problem. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, no offence intended – I had not looked into the history of who did the merge. Anyway, there are more with redlinks now, e.g. these that I fixed today. Some of the red links are from TfDs later than 2005, e.g. [10]. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I just fixed the top box at [11] by adding |discuss=Moby game. I'll go through the WLH list to see if there are more. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If you like, although I think it would be neater (and less work) to fix the template. I think I checked all the first 70 from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Tfdend (down to Beethoven) – ah, but I was only looking out for red links, not for missing discussion links like the one you just fixed. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, some of them will be like Template talk:Non-free Crown copyright, where I had to add the namespace. I think I'll see if AWB can make it go quicker, because there are more than 2000 links. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, the namespace could certainly be added by the template code, too. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

  Administrator changes


  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)