Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 6 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Newspaper editors of the Americas edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Newspaper editors of the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. plicit 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. The former contents are now better structured in North & South. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Luxembourgish edit

I was looking at List of Luxembourgish films because Template:GetCountryNameFromAdjective does not work with it. In your 2012 move you linked to the project talk page which had a discussion that lead to to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 12#Luxembourgian where there was no consensus to move the categories. So which form should we use Luxembourgian or Luxembourgish? Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gonnym: For an essay on the options, see User:Brigade Piron/"Luxembourg", "Luxembourgish" or "Luxembourgian"?
We note that category names for people can be considered separately, usually using the demonym, which may be different from the adjective used for other topics – e.g. the consistent trees around Philippine films and Filipino film directors.
WP:WikiProject Luxembourg has stated since Sept 2015 that "Luxembourg" is currently the preferred adjective… 'Luxembourger' is the undisputed demonym.[1]
"Undisputed demonym" may be incorrect, since Luxembourger has been explained as an ethnonym rather than demonym. "Luxembourgian" was then kept as the least bad option for people categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 19#Category:Luxembourgian people.
The ethnic group article Luxembourgers cites the EU re "Luxembourgish" being the adjective.[2] Wikipedia does not follow that source for other countries, e.g. in Literature by country we use Tajikistani rather than Tajik, and Kiribati rather than Kiribatian; although it should perhaps carry more weight in the case of Luxembourg.
@Brigade Piron: would it be timely to make a fresh attempt to align e.g. Category:Luxembourgian films and List of Luxembourgish films, perhaps using "Luxembourg films" to avoid confusion with Luxembourgish language? – Fayenatic London 12:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have personally always preferred Luxembourgish as the adjective. It is true that local preferences should not be decisive but there is no good reason to ignore them where there is no consensus for an alternative either. I don't think there is any risk of confusion with the language, and surely no more than there would be for List of French films or List of German films. I do prefer Luxembourg to Luxembourgian but having been very exercised about this issue about a decade ago I have also come to the conclusion that life is short... —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:17th-century churches in the United Kingdom as been nominated for deletion edit

 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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, Suonii180 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Journalism in the Americas has been nominated for merging to Category:Journalism by continent edit

 

Category:Journalism in the Americas has been nominated for merging to Category:Journalism by continent. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Place Clichy (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:List of companies formed by merger edit

 

Hello, Fayenatic london. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of companies formed by merger".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Notification passed on to User talk:UnitedStatesian. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Top of My Talk Page edit

It seems that you replied or commented on old stuff at the top of my talk page, that I had been ignoring. I pay very little attention to the top of my talk page, except to email alerts that someone has edited my talk page. Messages at the top of my talk page either have already scrolled to the top and are about to be archived by ClueBot, or were posted to the top by either of two types of ignorant users, those who don't know how talk pages work, or those who stupidly think that posting to the top gets my attention. So in checking on notification that you posted to my talk page, I see that you commented on stuff that I wasn't looking at anyway.

So, is there a reason why you commented on messages that I was already ignoring? Is there something that I should pay attention to, or were you just telling me to ignore things that were already in limbo? I am assuming that you were trying to be helpful, but was there something that you were suggesting that I do, or were you just doing well-meaning busywork that caused me to do more busywork? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Robert McClenon: I went to your page looking for someone experienced at MFD, and was going to ask your advice about a user with lots of unexplained WP:COPYARTICLEs, but then I noticed that that editor was more active on another Wikipedia, so I left them a follow-up message there.
Sorry for the distraction! The messages on your talk page will be archived by ClueBot now that they are headed and signed, but it has skipped them until now. Forgive me omitting to leave you a note after meddling like a WP:TPS. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for explaining that the messages were not being archived because they were not signed. I had almost forgotten that.
Do you have a question about fake articles? Sometimes they should be redirected to the article, and sometimes they should be deleted. What namespace are they in? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome for that! The pages I have in mind are in user space. I keep coming across them when checking backlinks after category changes. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a lot of copies. If I saw any of them at MFD, I would !vote to Redirect them to the articles that they are copies of. The only reason that I am not recommending that you nominate them for MFD is that it will be a lot of work to list what they are copies of. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

 

  CheckUser changes

  Wugapodes

  Interface administrator changes

 

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

  Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

  Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

After I created a CFD that you voted at and since there was a unanimous decision to merge Category:Missing people found deceased into Category:Formerly missing people, I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining. Yet there is still talk about starting another CFD. Perhaps you could let the people here who are discussing this that there is absolutely no need to. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Davidgoodheart: WP:Consensus can change, especially if new arguments are presented, or if it is shown that some were not given due weight before.
In this case I'm not going to stop people discussing whether some or all of these articles should be purged from the merged category. Admins are here to implement consensus, not to impose it. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:FayeWong-EyesOnMe.jpg edit

 

Thanks for uploading File:FayeWong-EyesOnMe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the record, that's just been undone by another editor, see Talk:Eyes_on_Me_(Faye_Wong_song)#2021_merge. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy Adminship Anniversary! edit

Copyright problems edit

I'm wondering why on February 23 you added a copyright issue to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 14 rather than adding it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 23? -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pemilligan: well spotted. I was following the steps and links at template:Copyvio, which still says "Add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 14" today. I see that the template uses {{timestamp}} rather than the current date, which makes sense once the template has been subst'd, but was less helpful when an editor is following the instructions on the template page. Perhaps we could get a bot to refresh the template page daily. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
 

The article List of given names invented by fiction writers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article doesn't meet WP:NLIST.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of given names derived from fiction moved to draftspace edit

Thanks for your contributions to List of given names derived from fiction. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Country disestablishment category by decade/core edit

 Template:Country disestablishment category by decade/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Country disestablishment category by decade/old edit

 Template:Country disestablishment category by decade/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

English-language television shows edit

Your edit implies that the category should be purged and a number of subcategories should be deleted. Are you planning a follow-up on this? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Category:Jamaican television shows should be removed, and articles that are in other sub-cats should be purged. No, I wasn't planning to watch/maintain this category myself.
I was surprised at the creation of Category:British English-language television shows etc. It makes sense to have Category:Indian English-language television shows but I am not aware of precedents for English-language subcats in countries where English is the main language. So Category:Songs in English and Category:English-language films by country don't have American, British, Canadian (etc) sub-cats.
I see that English-language Irish films, English-language Scottish films and English-language Welsh films exist, but I'm nominating them now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_11#English-language_Bahamian_films. – Fayenatic London 12:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Reply

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nevis 1983 Xmas MS.jpg edit

 

Thank you for uploading File:Nevis 1983 Xmas MS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vanjagenije: IMHO the low-res image was a nice addition to the article, but I note that as currently worded WP:NONFREE#Images includes "For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it", and that does seem to preclude continuing use of this non-free image.  Fayenatic London 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Query edit

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I've been seeing a disturbing pattern with empty categories about the past two weeks I hope you can help with. Here's the situation: Ernsanchez00 creates categories that have a division of gender and sexual orientation/identity, Giovanni 0331 empties the categories, they then get tagged for CSD C1 and later are deleted. The two editors are working on the same area of the project, categorizing people, mostly actors, on a level of gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity, but have different ideas on how that should be done. I have asked both editors to discuss this with each other so they are on the same page but that conversation is not happening. I'll just add that Ernsanchez00 has been very cooperative even though it's their contributions that are getting deleted. They even went to some CSD C1-tagged categories and marked them for deletion so they could be CSD G7.

The reason I come to you is that I do not fully understand the extent of the diffusing/non-diffusing aspect of categories. There is what I think it means (include women authors in both women authors and authors categories) but I'm less sure when it comes to sexual orientation and sexual identity. I'm guessing that one of these two editors has a correct understanding of this and the other editor does not, but I'm not certain who is who. Can you educate me here and make sure that we aren't deleteting valid categories from the project because they are being emptied? On the other hand, if they should be deleted, I'd like to know that as well. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply