Archives

• 9 Sept 2006 – 20 Aug 2007  • 21 Aug 2007 – 17 Apr 2008  • 18 Apr – 31 Dec 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2012  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2013  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2014  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2015  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2016  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2017  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2018  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2019  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2020  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2021  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2022  • Jan–Jun  • Jul–Dec 2023

29 March 2024
Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified In the media: "For me it’s the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune Humour: Letters from the editors Comix: Layout issue
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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

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

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 deleting 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]

Forgive the delay, @Liz: – been busy IRL. I don't consider myself an expert on WP:EGRS. If categories created by one editor are being deleted with that editor's cooperation rather than objection, my starting point would be not to worry about it if they are new. If the categories had been in place a couple of years then I'd put effort in to see them moved, rather than replaced without attribution; and that effort would have the benefit of inviting scrutiny by others. Either way, if the new categories seem to be against policy or CFD precedent, then challenge is needed. HTH… – Fayenatic London 22:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fayenatic I'm requesting you and urgent to block or delete this vandals as he/she edit the article Maria Clara, in the edit history you can see he/she edited with improper and wrong thoughts about the article and it clearly and obviously vandalize the article like editing for fan etc...this is his IP address https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.35.163.36 thank you for your direct response and action. Rc ramz (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted the other edit by that IP address, but they only made 2 edits and it was 10 hours ago, so I believe there's no need to block unless they use that address again. Instead, I have renewed the protection on María Clara.

In that article, I noticed that Vortex3427 recently made a big cut from the lead section. Please consider whether the sentence about the feminine ideal should be reinstated, and the other sentences re-created in a separate section about her plot line. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what you see its like a minor or typographical errors etc...but since I know the article about its one of the famous and known article as character of famous book wrote by José Rizal, and for that editor he/she completely not just vandalizing but making fan etc about the article because I understand what he/she put on the article which clearly not supposed to be...its not like claiming or putting words without sources or point of view but he/she put like playing game in short of something and I ask you to please put strong protection on Maria Clara article since its not a minor type article. Thank you for your cooperation and direct response.Rc ramz (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vortex3427 for developing the article further, perhaps in response to my ping. – Fayenatic London 08:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am trying to dig up sources. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was urgent I found since I was notified in my notification and found out the article List of beauty pageants are vandalizing by this two vandals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tankura&redlink=1 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uddhabadhikari&redlink=1. Their claims and edit are coming from unknown sources like and mainly Facebook pages that is and most likely an insight and not a news or book and coming from verified and legit sources a references that Wikipedia allowed for uses as supporting the the article. Thank you for your direct response. Rc ramz (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undo some of their unsourced and claims but its huged since I'm only using mobile atm.Rc ramz (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rc ramz: no-one seems to have posted any warnings on their user pages. Please use standard templates from WP:WARN to let them know they are being watched. If you and other editors do this and still they carry on with disruptive edits, then admins can quickly block them. Otherwise, we would have to spend time investigating before we do that.

Start with a level 1 warning, unless what they are doing is obviously in bad faith. Then increase to level 2, level 3 etc if they make another bad edit after the first warning. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did and still not listening I warned him/her on his/her talk page but now minutes still undo without valid reasons when you view his user page Tankura he is long years in the community but never learned the rules in Wikipedia. I hope this can resolve with your help. Thank you.Rc ramz (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one of your warning templates as it incorrectly referred to a report at WP:AN when no report had been made there.

The user's last edit[3] was to revert themselves; perhaps they have learned their lesson, so I have not blocked them.

If there are so many edits that you need help keeping an eye on particular pages/editors, then consider making a report at WP:ANI. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm requesting you sir to have this 2 articles a semi-protection List of beauty pageants and Mister Grand International since I found out a lot of vandals across the page. Thank you Rc ramz (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC) {{Edit extended-protected}} Rc ramz (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined, as there has been no vandalism or other reverted edits to those articles for 3 and 4 days respectively. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rc ramz: talking of keeping an eye on things, please check out this link.

Best wishes! – Fayenatic London 09:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

If your premise is that category redirects should not exist at all, then propose a change of policy with respect to them. They are permissible, and for categories that existed at a particular title for a long time before being moved, positively useful. BD2412 T 15:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: As I'm the author of WP:Category redirects that should be kept, I wonder if you have left your message for the wrong editor?

Do you have a particular deleted category redirect in mind? I moved Category:1948–49 National Basketball Association standings templates to Category:1948–49 NBA standings templates for the benefit of category navigation using {{navseasoncats}}, and did so without leaving a redirect at the old name because there are now no incoming links. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to, e.g., Category:Loki (season 1) episodes. I left these redirects intentionally because the category structure for thousands of recently-moved season articles has been in place for over a decade, so editors working in the area will benefit from category-populating tools recognizing the old versions and automatically updating to the new ones when the categories are added to articles. BD2412 T 18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of category-populating tools that would populate the old names. When I deleted that small group, I thought they had been left behind inadvertently, and I could not conceive of any benefit. Rather, I saw them as clutter which would confuse search results, and thought editors would quickly learn the new naming format.

I noticed today that you have also done extra work to recreate many more redirects that were listed at WP:CFDW. An opportunity was missed there, to code these listings with * REDIRECT, in which case the bot would have left redirects behind, coded with "keep=yes". – Fayenatic London 19:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how quickly editors will learn the new categorization, but there are hundreds of editors who work on this (corresponding to the hundreds of TV series episodes being churned out). It also seems odd to me that we would unquestionably keep thousands of resulting redirects like Loki (season 1) --> Loki season 1, but not keep the few hundred like Category:Loki (season 1) episodes --> Category:Loki season 1 episodes. If there's a quick fix that can be made to mark the category redirects as appropriate to be kept, I'm glad to add whatever is needed. BD2412 T 19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As documented at {{category redirect}}, you can add |keep=yes , and this suppresses the delete button for admins. You might want to mention the rationale for keeping in your edit summary. – Fayenatic London 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed this Cfm and have found that Category:Islands of the Dutch Caribbean is actually the fork and Category:Islands of the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has existed considerably longer. Should the categories be merged reversely? The category that remains can of course be renamed. What should be done at this stage? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islands of the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was merged to Dutch Caribbean in 2017, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 16#Category:Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Others e.g. "Category:Landforms of the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" were then renamed/merged Speedily; I think only this one was overlooked.

Looking at the page history, it was created by BrownHairedGirl in 2017; she was a longstanding editor who often filled in missing parts of incomplete hierarchies, sometimes creating them where they had been added as red links by others. The page is only two years older than the target, and in this case I think it would just make it more messy to merge the page history, for relatively little benefit. So I think this merge can simply be implemented as nominated. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, can I ask whether you, Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw think Aruba, Curacao & Sint Maarten should be categorised as "dependent territories"? – Fayenatic London 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Comparing it to the UK, the best term might be "constituent countries" with "devolved" competences. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten have got autonomy in most matters except defence and foreign affairs (handled by the Parliament (Tweede Kamer) and Government of the Netherlands), and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands as its highest judicial body. So in a sense they are "dependent", but by comparison they have more autonomy than, say, Scotland or Wales. The British reserve the term "Crown Dependencies" for jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Like them, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten have a governor directly representing the king (which Scotland and Wales don't), but they also have prime ministers similar to the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man. So I'm not sure what to call them legally... NLeeuw (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: if we would have to choose between countries and dependent territories then I would opt for countries but both options would be defensible. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Please Myself pink cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You renamed this category, but half the games in it are tabletop games rather than video games. BOZ (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Warren_Spector#Role-playing_games I see what you mean, although some have been removed for now. Anyway, I support the change to "Games". – Fayenatic London 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I apparently missed a CfD nominating "Former Ikawa Line Stations". I was intending on adding several more stations that were submerged due to the construction of a dam, but I was distracted by something else that I would not like to disclose and accidentally forgot about it's existence. I'm not objecting the result that it was closed as delete for now, because it makes sense as a 1-paged category, but I wished that you could have just left a notice regarding the CfD nomination to my talk page. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaBetaGamma: I apologise for not leaving you a note re Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_23#Category:Former_Ikawa_Line_Stations. I would normally do so, and cannot remember why I did not on that occasion.

In return, can I ask you when you create a category to give it some parent categories, according to what hierarchies intersect there? E.g. that one belonged in Category:Stations of Ōigawa Railway and Category:Defunct railway stations in Japan. – Fayenatic London 06:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite not used to doing those kinds of things (I am technically 6 months into editing as I didn't do anything for the first 6 months) So I added Those 2 when I recreate it in the future? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignore the bad grammar) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please!

I apologise for my mistake in misreading Ikawa as an error for Ōigawa. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Please Myself pink cover.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) 02:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article reverted, see Talk:Please_Myself#Album_cover_image. – Fayenatic London 07:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fayenatic london, thank you for catching those nominations I made at WP:CFDS, I wasn't aware you had already been through those parts. I removed a number of nominations, a list of which I made here, and removed the speedy renaming template from all relevant categories. You did support one of the renamings (Category:Japanese defense ministers to Category:Defense ministers of Japan), which I've left, but I also left two other ones that you did not comment on. For reference, these were Category:New Zealand defence ministers to Category:Defence ministers of New Zealand and Category:Danish Defence Ministers to Category:Defence ministers of Denmark. My understanding is that these should be okay because they are not changing/refactoring the job title, such as if I were to change it from "Minister of Defense" to "Defense ministers". Please let me know if I am incorrect and I will also remove those two nominations as well. Again, sorry for the inconvenience! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up... I'm noticing some inconsistencies in these. Should I be proposing categories such as Category:Swedish Ministers for Defence to Category:Ministers for Defence of Sweden? Just noticing that a lot of these categories seem to be either "TypeOfMinster minsters of Country" or "Ministers of TypeOfMinister of Country", while there are others, like the Sweden example, that do not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I didn't go through them all, I just added "Agreed" on a couple of samples that looked right, to demonstrate that I did agree in principle with renamings according to that pattern. Yes, these NZ and Danish examples look right too.

Hmm, the main article was at Minister of Defence (Sweden), but all the usage within it was "Minister for Defence", so I moved it back to Minister for Defence (Sweden). Therefore the category should be Category:Ministers for defence of Sweden, with lowercase d. – Fayenatic London 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]