User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 060

click here to leave a newmessage for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the template. The script I use for perms auto issues it. Anyway, hope it was a quick enough response time :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @TonyBallioni.

I think your response took several whole milliseconds ... so yeah, just about quick enough . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

51 seconds, to be exact... --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Nearly 51,000 milliseconds! Shocking! . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your determination to create a better legacy for our readers. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:FeydHuxtable submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

BrownHairedGirl is one of the editors most responsible for making Wikipedia one of the world's best sources of information. Joining the project back in Jan 2006, she has made over 1.5 million edits and has created more than 3,000 articles. During her tenure our reputation for reliability has increased significantly, and BHG's work is undeniably a major reason. She is a good writer with a great eye for selecting items of human interest and encyclopaedic salience, making her one of our strongest contributors for content relating to Irish & British politics. Yet most of her time is spent doing what many would perceive as boring house keeping - removing incorrect information, enhancing other editors work with minor format improvements, and perhaps most of all by contributing to the organisation of information with a phenomenal amount of edits to our catalogue & disambiguaty pages. Her commitment to integrity does sometimes spark some very formidable argumentation, some might find it occasionally over passionate and over expressed. But none can deny her commitment to the Wikipedia project, or the fact that her talk page contributions significantly elevate the analytical rigour of our discussions. Overall, BrownHairedGirl is one of our more peaceful editors, with an unusually high percentage of edits having nothing to do with drama. When she does collaborate with others she is typically helpful and kind. This nomination was seconded by Gog the Mild, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Puddleglum2.0, User:Davey2010, Gandydancer and User:Razr Nation.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

One of BrownhairedGirl Heroes

BrownHairedGirl

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 26, 2020

Works toward the goal of making WP one of the world's best sources for information. Joined in Jan2006, over 1.5 million edits and 3,000 articles. Reliable. selective writer, looks for human interest and encyclopaedic salience. A strong content contributor to Irish & British politics. Removes incorrect information, enhances other editors work with format improvements and contributes to the organisation of information with edits to our catalogue & disambiguity pages. Committed to integrity, she is one of our more peaceful editors; helpful and kind.

Recognized for

a cornucopia of important work

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow!

Many many thanks, Buster7 and FeydHuxtable, and also Gog the Mild, Serial Number 54129, Puddleglum2.0, Davey2010, Gandydancer and Razr Nation. That's very kind of you all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know we dont always agree, but you have, quite rightly, earned great respect for your indefatigablity and you well deserve the award above. If you think I can assist (even though the technicalities of what you propose are beyond me) please say so.Rathfelder (talk)

Many many thanks, Rathfelder. Yes, we do often disagree, but you too have admirable indefatigablity, which I don't acknowledge enough. You have put a huge amount of work into categories over many years, and bounce back from difficult corners.

As to the Organi[SZ]ations category redirects, I think that the main issue is persuading our cynic why the redirects are needed, and why the lack of them is such a pain for so many people. Anything you can add in that respect will be valuable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’m not sure what happened here but a paramilitary force is not a living person. Sildemund (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sildemund, thanks for your message. I am sorry about that edit, and also bewildered, because I cannot see any way that this could have been done by the code in use (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 6/AWB module).

Thanks for your revert.[1]

The best I can do with the bot is to restart AWB, in the hope that the problem was that it had somehow become corrupted. All very weird. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, stranger things have been known to happen! Sildemund (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sildemund and BrownHairedGirl: Do you think that the AWB behaviour in some way could have been triggered by the use of {{Birth date and age}} in the infobox of that page, added here, and still present?

@PeerBaba: Did you realise that "Birth date" in English rarely is used for other entities than human beings (and other animals)? Or is e. g. Pakistani English or Indian English usage different in this respect? JoergenB (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JoergenB. That's probably the cause. WP:GENFIXES handles that template intelligently, so it woukd have acted on it.

{{Birth date and age}} says This template is intended for use in an article about a living person ... but National Guard of Pakistan is not a living person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed[2] the article. Thanks again, @JoergenB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your fix also made the weird information "(age 72)" disappear from the infobox.

I'm a bit unsure myself about making a correction, when an unusual formulation might be just a regional linguistic variation. However, even if this were the case here, I suppose that we anyhow should follow the explicit template instructions in the first place. JoergenB (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JoergenB, I have no hesitation in removing anything that says an organisation has a date of birth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the changes, and noted that you changed the factual content when you replaced the call to bda. I assume that this was not your intent, but indeed an effect of 'locale differences'; the bda unlabelled arguments are assumed to be in order Year, Month, Day, and I guess that this does not follow your usual dating standard, and therefore momentarily fooled you. (The replaced text {{Birth date and age|1948|01|03}} expanded to ...January 3, 1948, as I'm sure you actually know, most of the time.)

I'll change to what I believe you intended. Since there are some further factual issues with this, I'll also make a comment on Talk:National Guard of Pakistan, and propose that any further discussions about the actual date is made there, whether or not my guesses were correct. Respectfully, JoergenB (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JoergenB, your failure to link to a diff led to me to assume that your latest comment was about the bot edit.

Anyway, I have replied on the substance at Talk:National_Guard_of_Pakistan#Establishment_date?. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. (You had linked to it a couple of lines up; but I now realise that you had no clear reason to understand that I was thinking about that particular edit.) JoergenB (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You might want to take a look at Regé-Jean Page, an article that you successfully nominated for deletion at AfD a year ago, but that has now been recreated. You are probably the most familiar with the availability of sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - wow you are a wikipedia superuser and no mistake. Forgive me for bothering you with this.

I've been looking at the Brocklehurst family to do with my new page on Emma Dent and I saw the page you created around 10 years ago on her father John Brocklehurst.

Reference number 2 ("Death of a Parliamentary veteran". The Times. London. 11 January 1833. p. 4.) has been there since the start. There's clearly a typo or something in the date as Brocklehurst was only just elected to the House of Commons in 1833, but despite searching in The Times archive I can't work out what it could be.

Many thanks if you get a moment to puzzle on this. Iower (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iower, and thanks for for your kind words.

Congrats for your attentiveness in spotting that glitch. You are quite right that a newspaper published 37 years before his death is a little implausible as a source for the news of his death: The Times used to be a newspaper of record, but as far as I know it has never claimed to be a crystal ball. <grin>

I found the article which I was actually citing at: "Death of a Parliamentary veteran". The Times. No. 26838. London. 25 August 1870. p. 4 – via Times Digital Archive.

Looks like I used my old technique of copying a ref from another article I had written, and using that as a template ... but forgot to fix it. Oops.

I used to be able to link to articles in The Times Archive, but can't currently see how to do that. However, a search for "death of Mr J Brocklehurst" gives only one result, which is this page. So if you have access to the archive, I'm sure you can find it.

Hope this helps. Congrats for you good work on Emma Dent, and thanks again for spotting my error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I'm new to the Times Archive and find it a bit erratic, but can see it now from the dateIower (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

This template is populating a lot of category redirects - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for the ones picked up so far. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Timrollpickering.

It's part of a work-in-progress. It's also populating non-existent cats. I'm on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unassessed-Class chess articles of Mid-importance 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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to merge Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies of Russia to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of Russia Hugo999 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's this do? "(wrapped whole page in <pre> tag to stop it poulating non-existent categories ... to remove clutter from cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. Sorry for the intrusion, User:Irtapil, but it's a nuisance having permanent fixtures on a cleanup list)" Irtapil (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irtapil

See that page before I edited it. Several redlinked categories, which show up in Special:WantedCategories.

Per WP:REDNOT, such categories are an error. For language categories, I usually create the missing categs, but there's no point in doing that when their only content will be a test page.

So the least disruptive solution was to disable the page, by wrapping it all in a <pre> tag so that it no longer populates any category. That way your code is still there if and when you want to work on it again ... but in the meantime your draft page is not cluttering up a cleanup list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your eponymous category work may have missed some edge cases which I've encountered several times. Category:Lethal Weapon is named after the film, but Lethal Weapon (franchise) also exists which the category should be named after. Do you think you can track down these occurrences? --Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonnym

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I am waiting for more progress on the horribly-long CFD backlog to clear some more of the nominations from the first round. Then I will do another round of list-making, and at that point I think that I may be able to use the lists to identify such cases ... and if not I will ask for help in building a quarry query to help identify them (if that's possible).

There has been some discussion of the idea that in such cases the " (franchise)" disambiguator is un-needed. I disagree with that notion, but it has been proposed by Fayenatic london, with whom I usually agree, so it has been interesting to find that we are not entirely of like mind. No bad thing. .

I can't recall offhand where the discussion is located, or what outcome it is heading to, but maybe FL can give us the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know of the discussion you are referring to. While not officially closed, it has run for over 30 days and has more opposers than supports, so I don't see it closing in changing anything. Regardless though, even that proposal wasn't about the parent category, but the sub-categories. Even the Mario category closed with leaving it at the franchise. --Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gonnym. Good to know that won't change things.

When I do my next round of eponcat list-making, I will post links at WT:CATP to all the lists I make. If I forget to include this one, please remind me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the discussion mentioned above is at WT:CFD#RFC on including disambiguators in category names. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, something's broken in Category:1991 in Yugoslav television and friends, it's no longer translating Yugoslav into Yugoslavia for the categories. Le Deluge (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, {{YYYY in nationality women's sport category header}} in eg Category:2015 in Canadian women's sport is generating a Category:2015 in Canadian sport when it should be sports. Le Deluge (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thanks, @Le Deluge.

I had spotted that, and just fixed it a few seconds before you posted, in these two edits: [3],[4]

The problem was that I modified[5] Module:CountryAdjectiveDemonym/Adjectives‎ to fix the Category:1990s in Yugoslavian women's sport etc, but forgot that the TV categories used "Yugoslav". I spotted yesterday that they had all broken. Damn.

After some burrowing, I found that the TV categories are correct to use "Yugoslav", so I made a mass CFDS nom to fix the sports cats (see [6]) ... and reverted[7] my change to the module ...and made an ugly temporary hack to Template:GetCountryNameFromAdjective to keep the sports cats working for now.

So Special:WantedCategories should cleanup in the next hour.

You may also have noticed a lot of "YYYY in Canadian sport" cats at SWC. That too will be resolved when the "YYYY in Canadian women's sport" cats are renamed to "sports". They are listed at CFDS, and should be done tomorrow. The American ones were renamed today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi BHG, for Category:1919–20 in Yugoslavian football to 1969–70, there are incoming redirects from hyphens to dashes, e.g. Category:1919-20 in Yugoslavian football. Please would you (i) update the targets from Yugoslavian to Yugoslav, and (ii) likewise move them to the more useful redirect Yugoslav? Hope that's clear... I've done some manually, but you may think of a way to automate this. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fayenatic. That's a fairly easy job to do with AWB, so I'll get to it now. I need a wee break from those Turkish villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic: all done, in these 51 edits. Hope that lightens your admin load. CFDS has been v busy this last week, and I have created quite a chunk of that load, so I am v grateful for the work you and others have done in processing it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BHG. You're welcome of course - thanks for stating rationales fully.

May I request you also move the redirects from Yugoslavian to Yugoslav without leaving a new redirect? The point of these redirects is to match except for the hyphen/dash. – Fayenatic London 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, I can't delete the redirects, or any other pages. Also, I don't see any need to delete them ... but if you want to delete them, I won't object. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah – please forgive me. Moreover, I see now that you also created new ones [8]. Job done. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to forgive, Fayenatic. All good, and job done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was clearly a typo. Yes I should have caught it, yes you could have to. It isn’t necessary to revert and scold for everything yanno. And by the way, there is no rule saying you can’t create a category where needed. But no, that wasn’t what I was doing there Elinruby (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby, I reverted[9] your edit,[10] and explained why. To explain my revert, I used the standard edit summary which I use when working through Special:WantedCategories. No offence intended, and it's better not to take offence when a minor error is fixed.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really offended. It needed to be fixed. But I am just saying, reverting is kinda rude, with overtones of vandalism, and “please use categories that actually exist” is wrong. And also does not apply to the actually issue. 1) “please remember to tidy up your typos” would still have been a bit condescending, but at least have been accurate. 2) It is just fine to create a category, and I am a little concerned that you don’t seem to know this. That wasn’t a case for it, sure, but since it was the first letters of a category I did apply, it should have been pretty clear it was a typo. That’s all. Sometimes slowing down a minute is more productive in the end. And please do not keep telling people that they can only use existing categories Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby, you are making very heavy going of something very simple. You say that are not trying to take offence, but you proceed to contradict that by your claims that I am kinda rude and a bit condescending.

I know perfectly well that it is fine to create a category, and you have no basis for your assertion that I didn't know that. You repetition of that false claim is getting tedious. I linked to WP:REDNOT; please read it.

When you do read WP:REDNOT, you will see that it says

A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists.

The problem here was that you added a page to a category which did not exist. Per WP:REDNOT, you should have either have fixed the entry on the article, or created the category. You could in theory have created the category, but since Category:Technology articles in ne is clearly incomplete, creating a category under that title would have been absurd. The incomplete title gave me too little info to figure out that you actually intended, so removing it was the only option.

You wrote slowing down a minute is more productive in the end. That is ridiculous: the problem is that you didn't slow down to check own work. A simple glance at the bottom of the page after saving it would have shown that it was red-linked, and that you had added a non-existent category. You did not take the time to do that, so please take your own advice instead of falsely attributing to me the error which you made.

There is nothing rude about reverting. You made an error, I fixed it. No big deal. Now please stop wasting my time and yours by making a drama out of your own failure to read WP:REDNOT and to check your owns edits. I did not make any judgement on your error, because we all make errors and in a collaborative environment we fix them for each other ... and the collaborative response from you would have been to thank me for fixing your error.

Please take time for a rethink before posting here again.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you aren’t a listener. Ok fine. Do as you wish. Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, @Elinruby. I have listened carefully, and I have responded factually.

Sadly, you appear to be engaged in some bizarre timewasting exercise of repeatedly projecting onto me your own errors, in an effort to avoid accepting any responsibility for your own actions. I hope you are just trolling, but if that is not the case then not I wish you good luck in resolving your issues.

Now stay off my talk page until you change your tune. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG. Thanks very much for your suggestion on my draft of William Fraser (architect) regarding Categories. I have a quick question: Can you confirm for me that my draft is indeed in the queue for editing? Given the fact you made that suggested edit, I suspect it is, and I believe I hit all the correct buttons last week to place it there. However, I can't find any confirmation that it has been submitted, but that's probably because I'm a relative Wikipedia neophyte and I don't know where to look! Thanks very much for your help!! Best regards, IanIan.fraser1 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian.fraser1

From Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft: Once you think your draft is ready to go live, submit your article to the Articles for creation by placing {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top of your article and an experienced user will move your article into WP:Draftspace for further review.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes that worked perfectly and an editor has already been in touch with me about it. Thank you. Your help is greatly appreciated. Stay safe and all the best.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes in all subcategories of Category:Years in Los Angeles removed them as subcategories of Category:Years in California. For example Category:1919 in Los Angeles did not appear as a subcategory of Category:1919 in California. I had to restore the parent category manually.

I don't know your reasoning but you should review other such changes for similar problems. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick, sorry about that.

I was trying to ensure that they all ended up in either "YYYY in Los Angeles County" or "YYYY in California", but not both. (This a rare case; we have few if any other year-in-county category sets)

Unfortunately, I omitted the second line of the if statement

You fixes unfortunately left some of the cats in both "YYYY in Los Angeles County" and "YYYY in California", which is wrong per WP:SUBCAT. So I have run through them again and fixed that. See e.g. 1919: [11]

It's v easy easy for me to fix this sort of thing with AWB, so if you spot anything like that please just lemme know and I'll fix it. No point in doing it manually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Turkmenistan high jumpers 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. This was clearly wrong (removing the only category of the article). I have seen similar edits yeaterday on my watchlist, and most of these were good, but apparently a fraction went wrong. Could you please have a look?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oops! Thanks, @Ymblanter.

I'm always wary of a misclick with Cat-a-lot, but it seems I both screwed up that click and missed it

Thanks for spotting it, and for being so nice about it. I am fixing them now.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all fixed.

Here are the original edits: [12]

And here's the reverts: [13]

Thanks again to Ymblanter for spotting these. And damn WMF for throttling Cat-a-lot, so that it takes multiple passes to do a set. It was the second pass where I misclicked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am normally able to trace this type of mistakes because I have the articles of Russian district centers which I created on my watchlist, but I only created not more than 50% of those.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ymblanter.

The problem here is that Wagino 20100516 (talk · contribs) is doing prolific work creating subcats for the districts, which is great ... but unfortunately Wagino pays no attention to WP:SUBCAT, so they just add the subcat without removing the parent cat.

They did this for ~10,000 articles in Russian district cats. They also dis it for about 6,000 Turkish villages, except that in the Turkish case each village was in 2, 3 or 4 superflous cats. It took me over 25K edits to cleanup up that mess (last week). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BrownHairedGirl for your good job. Is there anything I can improve regarding my contribution next time? Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all the "<network> original programming" categories in Category:Television series by network listed at User:Gonnym/sandbox/tvcat#Networks with fixes to the category name where it didn't match the article in disambiguation or extra space (changed names were kept). I also tried to make sure I removed all the studio categories which didn't belong there. Of course some mistakes in all of what I said above might have slipped in.

Another thing to notice is that not all country categories are written the same: Category:American television series by network, Category:South Korean television shows by network, Category:German television series by channel, and Category:Belizean television shows by channel. --Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gonnym. Well done purging the studios from that set.

I haven't verified the completeness of that list, but at a quick glance it looks good (although if you use it make a CFD nom, please use "to" instead of the arrow; the bots need the "to"). Would you like me to give it a more thorough examination?

I had spotted the inconsistency in the country categories, and reckoned they should all be standardised to "shows", as the more inclusive term. The common attribute being captured here is that this is original content broadcast by a channel, and I don't see any need to exclude one-off productions.

I also think that principle should be applied much more widely. For example we have:

• Category:Television series by creator, but no Category:Television shows by creator
• Category:Television series by period, but no Category:Television shows by period
• Category:Television series by source, but no Category:Television series by source
• Category:Television series by genre, but no Category:Television series by genre

... and so on for many of the subcats of Category:Television series.

This means that for example, a one-off drama show about witchcraft in 17th-century Palestine based on a book by Sam can't be categorised nearly as comprehensively as if the exact same edit was broadcast in a set of 4 episodes (when it would be a series). It couldn't go in Category:Television series set in the 17th century, Category:Television series about witchcraft, Category:Television series set in the Middle East etc.

I see two ways of resolving that:

1. By duplicating the "series" categories with a matching set of "shows" categories, so that Category:Television series set in the 17th century is is parent of Category:Television shows set in the 17th century
2. By renaming the series categories to "shows"

The renaming seems to me to be the better solution in many cases. There are some cases (esp genre) where the distinction between a one-off and a series is defining (e.g. police procedural series, the whole point of which is to portray the core characters in many difft cases) ... but I think there are many others where the distinction is unhelpful. Some sets are already inclusive (e.g. Category:Television shows by country). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I'm not a fan of the word "shows" but as that is the conclusion of the CfD/Review I think it's best to use it for consistency as you pointed above. What are your thoughts about the network/channel situation? I have some years of experience looking at these articles, and even in some of these articles the text goes from "network" to "channel" and sometimes even to "station" (example: Crave (TV network) which has "network" disambiguation and the lead calls it a network, but its in Category:Television channels and stations established in 1983). And yes, please, take all the time you want to look at the list to make sure it's correct. I'd also appreciate your help in tagging the categories for the CfD after if that's possible. --Gonnym (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, yes, I know your view on "shows". Thanks for being so decent about it. Obviously, if there is some future consensus to change that term, then it gets changed ... so please treat my mentions of "shows" as shorthand for "whatever term is used for now to indicate a show or program".

The channel/network choice seems a bit more knotty. Can we just follow the example of Category:Television channels and stations established in 1983), and use both? That would give us categories of the form Category:FooianNationality television series by channel or network.

And sure, I'm happy to help with tagging. I have some AWB custom modules for tagging, which I can hack for most purposes, so it's easy for me to avoid a lot of manual work. That goes whether or not we are otherwise collaborating on an issue, or even if I disagree with a proposal. Consensus is best achieved by having discussions, rather than by having technical barriers to a discussion ... so please count that as an open offer.

I am a wee bit tired and headachey this evening, so I will leave it until tomorrow to review the list of renamings. That sort of job needs a clear head. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Hey, just a friendly reminder if you can still help me with the tagging. --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, @Gonnym. Sorry for the delay on this. I meant to review these, but got sidetracked, and forgot.

I don't think I have the energy right now to check them all, but if you are satisfied with the list, then I am sure it will be thorough. Please go ahead and make the nomination. Just let me know when it is done, and I will follow up with the tagging.

Just one request: whatever day you do it, please do it before 1800 UTC. That sounds weird, but it's because tagging is much easier if done on the same day as the nomination, and 6pm gives me enough time to get the tagging done before the date changes and the CFD tagging templates start spewing out the wrong day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will make it now. --Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 15#Television series and network original programming. Thanks for the help! --Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help your good work. All done.[14] You are welcome, @Gonnym.

Here is a list of the 11 duplicates I found:

1. Category:Anhui Television shows to Category:Anhui Television original programming
2. Category:China Television shows to Category:China Television original programming
3. Category:Chinese Television System shows to Category:Chinese Television System original programming
4. Category:Chung T'ien Television shows to Category:Chung T'ien Television original programming
5. Category:Eastern Television shows to Category:Eastern Television original programming
6. Category:Formosa Television shows to Category:Formosa Television original programming
7. Category:Gala Television shows to Category:Gala Television original programming
8. Category:Sanlih E-Television shows to Category:Sanlih E-Television original programming
9. Category:Taiwan Television shows to Category:Taiwan Television original programming
10. Category:The Comedy Channel shows to Category:The Comedy Channel original programming
11. Category:TVBS shows to Category:TVBS original programming

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and thanks for catching those dups! --Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my effort to correct Shem and the two related articles. Before I changed it, it said "Vital ... in the section Philosophy". So I took "Philosophy and religion" to be the section because of the name of the project page Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion. On that project page, there is no section "Religion", but only "Religion and spirituality", but the category is Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Religion. Is there any way to harmonize the names ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400

You could start a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles. I won't get involved either way, but I can't see any benefit to nobody from merging those two broad topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you didn't get me. I don't want to start a discussion, I just wanted to say that there is an inconsistency between the name of the section on the project page and the name of the category. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, Rsk6400, I get you fine.

There is an inconsistency. You asked Is there any way to harmonize the names? If you want to resolve it, then a discussion is needed. If you can live with it, then no discussion needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...it was meant for his Commons category! I know better...just got in the late night copy and paste zone. Thankfully the only error made! Thanks for cleaning up my mess! Missvain (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:113 endings 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.

I have proposed the categories such as Category:Articles with text from the Afro-Asiatic languages collective for renaming to Category:Articles with text from Afro-Asiatic languages, at cfd. Your input is welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, @Rich, but a link to the discussion would have been helpful. For the record, it's at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Category:Articles_with_text_from_the_Afro-Asiatic_languages_collective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Route Diagram Templates have their own sub-category within Category:Tunnel templates? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlgaeGraphix: yes, they should.

Likewise, navboxes.

I had in mind to create both, but decided to get back to my main task. If you felt like doing either or both, that'd be great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Category:Tunnel template diagrams & Category:Tunnel template navboxes. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, @AlgaeGraphix. Those groupings are much more useful, and will help editors find the templates.

I have done a few tweaks to both. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	On behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges, thank you for your excellent work in categorizing courts by date of establishment. BD2412 T 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @BD2412. It started out as simply standardising a small set of categories using cathead templates, but then I realised that most courts weren't categorised by date of establishment, so off I went. Now it's several hundred new categories later, and no end in sight.

The US Circuit Court articles that I am working on now are in impressively good shape. There's a lot of solid work gone into them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PS @BD2412, I have taken to adding Category:Year of establishment missing to courts which fit that category. I didn't do it earlier in my run, but even with the late start there are still quite a few courts there. See https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17122386 for the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the note - I'll figure those out, in time. BD2412 T 17:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Binongan Itneg-language text 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.

I have removed this speedy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi brownhaired girl

I was awarded a Ph D in geoscience from the Australian National University in 1973

Regards

Sue Kesson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:184F:8E01:9914:5E7F:CE1D:9234 (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

But why are you telling me this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please do not implement Module:Navseasoncats with decades below year. I've already shown this can be done with minimal duplication of code which is the correct way to do it. I waited for Tom to implement it, but I can always go ahead and do it. Duplicating code is always the worst solution. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, I know you said you had made a demo, but I didn't see it.

Please can you show me where it is?

Tom.Reding has been asked several times over many months to do this, but hasn't. I guess his focus is elsewhere, which is fine ... but I think it's time to go ahead.

I have been starting to test Module:Navseasoncats with decades below year, and so far it seems to be working. I'd be very happy with an alternative that does the same job more elegantly, but where is it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done my testing of Module:Navseasoncats with decades below year, and I can't find any cases where it breaks.

I think I found your mod of Module:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade, at special:permalink/945670937. It looks elegant, but AFAICS it doesn't accommodate the fact that in some cases the word "the" needs to be added before the decade:

• Where there is no firstpart, then "YYYY foo" → "YYY0s foo"
• if there is a firstpart, then "Fooing in YYYY" → "Fooing in the YYY0s"

That's the issue that I fixed in this edit[15] to Module:Navseasoncats with decades below year. Can you make your version do that?

I am keen to get Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year Lua-ified pronto, so that I can start removing the parameters from its uses. I am inclined to proceed to implement what I have done, but I will hang on a bit for you to demo your version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you add any examples to Module:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade/testcases so I can see what doesn't work? --Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, Module:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade/testcases looks weird to me, because it creates no output.

To test Module:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade/testcases, I have created Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox, and Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/testcases. That's the range of use cases we need to test.

Note that there are two types of category:

• year at start
• year at end

... and three types of parameter

1. three unnamed parameters, like current usage
2. one unnamed parameter, Template:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade
3. one cat=foo parameter, Template:Navseasoncats

The first case is a fugly hack which should be phased out, so I have added tracking parameters for that usage.

All these cases are handled correctly in the version at Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox, which uses Module:Navseasoncats with decades below year. I have also tested it on a live category page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:2010_in_Irish_politics&oldid=973831053

If you can make a Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2 which does all that, then we I am happy to go live with your version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have added sandbox2 to the set of testcases in Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/testcases. So when you create Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2, we can compare the results size-by-side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to understand why we need the module to support unnamed parameters? Is it only for tracking? Is it for usage? --Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym:

1. the existing set of 184,191 uses of Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year all use three unnamed params. I don't want to break those.
2. the existing Template:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade accepts an unnamed param. I don't want to break that.

Please can you take the following in the friendly spirit in which it is intended?

I am working with these templates for most of most days. Literally hours every day. I was the original creator of Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year, and I have created ~500 cathead templates which use it. Most of its usage is due to me deploying it. So I know my way around these templates and their usage better than anyone else on en.wp.

I have just developed a module which will deliver a long-needed improvement to Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year. It's tested and it's working. It's ready to deploy.

You reckon that you have can do a version which uses more generalised code. That's potentially an elegant improvement, so I am trying to work with you to get that tested so that it doesn't break any usage of existing syntax, and supports the syntax used elsewhere. But it seems to me that is requiring me to spend a lot of extra time explaining all the issues, with which you aren't so familiar because you aren't so heavily immersed. That's fine; we are both volunteers, so devote our energies where we choose. But it leaves me feeling a bit frustrated that instead of deploying a good-enough solution which works fine, I am spending a lot of time describing the usage to you ...and that I am doing this not to gain any improved functionality, but just get more elegant code.

This doesn't seem to me to be productive, because I am spending twice as much time to gain no extra functionality. It seems to me to be best to just deploy the working version I have, and leave you to sandbox the multi-purpose code until it has been tested against all use cases. If and when your supports all uses as per my version so that it is a drop-in replacement, then your drop-in-replacement can be dropped in.

So I'm going to go ahead and deploy Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox, without prejudice to using version if and when it's ready. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm asking is because it seems to me you aren't really understanding the code you copied. My code works. It works now. It worked 5 months ago. It does not need the extra parameters to work. That is the reason I asked you to explain. Please engage in the discussion and not go ahead with your code. There is no rush that -today- it must be done and it can easily happen tomorrow. --Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's pretty upsetting you are asking me to check my code, and haven't even tested it once youself to tell me what doesn't work with it. You want me to fix something that I have no examples of whats broken with it. You have 2 different testcases pages to look at, and I've changed {{Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox}} to work with it. Use it and see if it doesn't work. --Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@Gonnym, please don't do that. I understand both sets of code just fine.

However, you have not demonstrated that your works on the set of testcases, and from the discussion above you seem unaware of the full range of uses. Please can you make that sandbox2 version so that we can see how it works on the by-year testcases? And the develop a set of testcases for the other uses which you want it to support? (i.e. centuries below decade etc)

In the meantime, I have deployed my version. As above, that's without prejudice to replacing it with you multi-purpose tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand what you want me to create in the sandbox2 version. Please BHG, give me a specific example of a page it doesn't work with. You have 2 pages with testcases and a sandbox template that work. Stop talking in abstract terms. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, I am asking you to create Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2 which uses your code, so that we can test it. That's all.

I cannot give you any examples of pages which Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2 does or does't work on until Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2 actually exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above really saddens, I'm not going to lie. Until now it was just a gut feeling that you didn't even look once into the testcases and the sandbox template, but you are asking me to create Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2 to invoke my module which {{Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox}} already does... --Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, I am sorry, but you are exasperating me. I took time to set up Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year/testcases so that it uses both /sandbox and /sandbox2, so we could compare the two side-by-side. Now I see that I missed the fact instead of creating /sandbox2, you modified /sandbox. I have reverted that.

Please, can you just do it as I explained very clearly, with your version in /sandbox2? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created what you asked, but if I may qoute you Please can you take the following in the friendly spirit in which it is intended, the usage of a /sandbox template is not to be a copy of the live version. You've already changed the code at Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year, so when you want to compare a sandbox code, the place to do it is at the actual /sandbox page. If you hadn't moved your code and we would have been comparing a few different versions then that would have been something else. Also, I know you have the technical expertise to take my code out of the /sandbox page and create the template you wanted. Why are you making me jump through hoops? --Gonnym (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, I am NOT making me jump through hoops. I am just friggin trying to frigging ensure that the code is tested.

I simply asked that you work with me to test a range of use cases, and to make that as easy as possible I took time to create the framework. But instead of using that framework, you first argued about the need for proper testcases, then decided to go down a difft track, so that the {{Navseasoncats with decades below year/sandbox2}} link continued to show as red. Why why, why not just do it as I had taken the tine to set it up?

Look, I'm grateful that you now have a version we can check. But it shouldn't have taken several screenfuls of dialogue to get here ... and at this point, I am well exasperated. So I will leave this aside until tomorrow, when I should be a better frame of mind, and then I will review the testcases at a point when I feel less frayed and we can have a more productive dialogue. But right now, I need a break from this discussion.

Note that since you want your module to be used on other templates, it will also need a set of testcases for those templates, with whatever permutations of parameters they have historically been used with as well as whatever new ones you want to support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took time to create the framework. But instead of using that framework - are you serious? I set up the frame work for you to see it and instead you created a completely different one that does the same thing and now you are saying that I didn't work with you? That's literally the thing I kept on doing, over and over. BHG, I'm asking for you to please take a look at the code today and let me know your thoughts. I would say there is no rush, but since you felt there is one, then please look at it. I really don't appreciate the fact that while I need your approval, you felt that my opposition to your code was ok to ignore. --Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity, @Gonnym, I hoped we could have a restart today.

The problem is that the framework you set up was inadequate. Module:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade/testcases as you created it (permalink) had no live examples, and there was no template wrapper to test with. You still don't seem to acknowledge the problem here that the resulting template has to handle a variety of permutations of parameters.

The format for /testcases pages is well-established: they should produce actual output. I did not give you a hard time about the fact that you hadn't done that. Instead I built a proper testcases page, so that we could test actual fully-functional sandboxed templates. It's very disappointing that the next day you still don't seem to see why that was needed.

I do want to work with you, and I do want to use your code if possible. But please, can you take a step back a deep breath and drop the notion that I am somehow messing you about. I find it very dispiriting to try wade through you resentment at my efforts to simply create actual live testcases, and I don't want to continue with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make it even easier for you, please test Category:31 deaths with {{Death year category header/sandbox|3|1}} and Category:2007 in Australian television with {{Year in nationality television category/sandbox}}. Both of these templates were changed by you yesterday to work with your version of the template. I see the exact same result. Correct me if I'm missing something. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, it would help if you avoided the your version of the template approach.

The aim of this exercise is to remove the need to split the pagename up into multiple parameters, and instead to allow the template to work with no parameters as its default mode, or with a single parameters for testcases.

My version does that, while still providing backward compatibility with old multi-parameter format so that it didn't break the existing uses. Since deploying it, I have converted over 170,000 uses to drop the now-redundant parameters. (Most of those uses were through cathead templates which I have updated (e.g. [16]), but several thousand uses have been directlky on category pages which I have updated using AWB.

Why you would you want to test {{Death year category header/sandbox|3|1}}? Why split the number? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it would help if you avoided the your version of the template approach (and then a line after: ) My version does that :) Anyways, new day so let's start over. BHG, I believe the module code I wrote works with all existing uses and is backwards compatible. I've tested it on pages and in the testcases pages and see no issue. I presented above two templates which you have updated to work with the new code you've added to show you examples of the code I wrote working with existing wrapper templates. The only different I made was point to the /sandbox version, not change the code on the page itself. You've asked me above Why split the number? That's a good question, but that has nothing to do with {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}. The code you wrote at Template:Death year category header currently needs |1= and |2= to set the text and categories, but does not pass these parameters to the navseasoncats template. As the code I wrote was not meant to change these wrapper templates, it has no connection to these parameters. Have I answered your question? What else can I do to help progress this along? I'll try and accommodate any request you have. --Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, OK, let's try the restart.

You misunderstand Template:Death year category header. It gets its year from two parameters, which need to be combined to form that actual year. The old version[17] invoked the template as {{Navseasoncats with decades below year||{{{1|}}}{{{2|1}}}| deaths}} ... i.e. it combined its two parameters to form the second parameter for {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}.

The now-live paramterless version of the {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} needs no parameters, which is why I removed[18] them.

I cannot see any instance where the multi-param usage of {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} should be invoked as {{Death year category header/sandbox|3|1}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, which is why Template:Death year category header/sandbox does not pass the multi-param to Navseasoncats, but Death year category needs them - see this edit. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Template:Death year category header must be invoked with params. But we are working on {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}, so please can we focus on that?

Glad we agree that {{Death year category header/sandbox|3|1}} is a red herring. It would have saved time not to introduce it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a red herring, I was showing how the module works with wrapper templates. BHG, please again, tell me how you want me to show you that it works and I will, but every time and I try and show you an example you say it isn't what you wanted. --Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, please please.

There is no case where the old multi-param version of {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} accepted two params. It always barfed at that, so we don't need to test that use case.

There is no case where {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} tolerated the year split as two parameters. It always barfed at that, so we don't need to test that use case.

This is the difficulty I have with this whole discussion you. I repeat what I wrote yesterday: I am working with these templates for most of most days. Literally hours every day. I was the original creator of Template:Navseasoncats with decades below year, and I have created ~500 cathead templates which use it. Most of its usage is due to me deploying it. So I know my way around these templates and their usage better than anyone else on en.wp.

So please please please please please please please please please please ... don't complain when I point out about which use cases exist and which need to be tested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Navseasoncats wdby

Hi @Gonnym

I have made unexpectedly fast progress on the goal of removing the usage of the multiple unnamed parameters.

As the category pages purged following the updates to {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}, they were categorised in two tracking cats:

• Category:Navseasoncats with decades below year with multiple unnamed parameters
• Category:Navseasoncats with decades below year without multiple unnamed parameters

As new entries appeared in Category:Navseasoncats with decades below year with multiple unnamed parameters, I updated the cathead template if they used one, or used WP:AWB to fix any cat pages which had the multiple parameters encode directly in the page.

That is now almost complete. Category:Navseasoncats with decades below year with multiple unnamed parameters now has only 85 pages, and the Petscan check for pages which haven't been purged is down to only ~300 pages: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17138527

I think that all remaining instances are cases where the cathead template has been updated, and the pages just need to be purged. Either way, some time by early tomorrow we should finally have confirmation that there are no remaining instances of {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} with multiple unnamed parameters.

When that's the case, I will update {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} to remove support for the multiple parameters, and update the /doc. That will be final delivery of the improved functionality which is what this wall about, i.e. removing the need for editors to chop up the category name when using the template, and making the template simple to use on any page by just adding {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}, in the spirit of the parameterless principle of {{Navseasoncats}}. The multi-parameter thing was a hack which I developed in late 2018/early 2019 on {{Year in country category}} and then generalised as a standalone template, but it was ugly to use and I'll be glad to see it replaced with something simpler to use.

Of course it will still be better to use a common code base for all two-row variants of Navseasoncats, so I do want to get your version of the module implemented. However, removing the need to support multiple unnamed parameters will simplify the set of testcases ... so I am going to defer the testing of it until tomorrow. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot has created a whole string of category redirects like this which are being populated automatically by Template:Category header anarchist organizations by country. Is there any way to easily stop the template from doing this? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timrollpickering

Links always help. Can you give me some links to examples? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed at User:RussBot/category redirect log. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Timrollpickering. I had hoped for a direct link to an example category, but in that list I found Category:Political organisations based in Ukraine by ideology, which I presume is what you meant. (It really does save everyone's time to just post the actual link to the actual page at issue).

This is a case of what I think will be a wider problem. viz that cathead templates need a way to resolve category redirects. I see some code in Module:Navseasoncats which I can rework for that purpose. It may take a day or two, because I am a bit slow with Lua. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering, I created {{Resolve category redirect}}, and deployed it in this edit[19] to Template:Category header anarchist organizations by country.

As far as I can see, that has fixed the problem ... but please let me know if there are other cases, or if there are unwanted side-effects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking to nominate this for deletion, as it appears to be a permastub on a fairly low-notability figure. However, since I see that you are the article creator, I'd like your thoughts, and to give you the chance to improve it if you think it can be expanded. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: that was from a long time ago! I see that I created it in 2006, a month or so after I started editing.

Platt was a significant figure in British left media, because he was the last editor of the New Statesman before it was bought out by he Blairites and purged of its left contributors. Platt gave a voice to a lot of people who were subsequently muted, and was quite acontrversail figure in the early 90s.

I don't have the energy to expand the article now, but I note this:

If Platt was a footballer who had for 5 years been captain of notable second-rank team, he'd be a a clear keep per WP:NFOOTY.

However Platt was instead the captain of a second-rank political publication: not a national newspaper, but a long-established magazine with huge influence on the British labourite left and an important place in its history. And thanks to the capture of en.wp's notability guidelines by sports fans, that does not qualify him for automatic notability.

So, because Platt actually shaped political debate about the shape of society, rather than doing the really unimportant world-historical task of kicking a ball, he's at risk of deletion. </ sarcasm>

Given the current notability guidelines, and the lack of editors working on the history of British Labour left politics who could improve this article, that article probably wouldn't survive AFD. But are you, BD2412, really sure that you want to magnify the systemic bias by nominating it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but as it stands the only source in the article is not independent, so something needs to change. BD2412 T 21:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one source. I suppose more can be found. BD2412 T 21:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Thanks. An editor seeking to expand it further needs access to a library, and/or to the archives of Tribune, The Guardian, Red Pepper, UK Press Gazette, etc. But deletion is not the remedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what is the point in replacing a template shortcut by the full name? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1234qwer1234qwer4

I thought it might help with resolving the soft redirects, per the Template:Resolve category redirect which I created to solve a problem above. But after consideration, I reckoned it wouldn't help much, because the redirects were unlikely to be deleted, so the code would still need to handle the redirects. So I stopped replacing them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, How clumsy of me to allow Cats in my user space. Thank you for your help. - Samf4u (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:WikiProject Free Software. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Template:WikiProject Free Software until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Pfaelzisch-language text 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.

... for dumping something that's bothered me for a while on your thread. I didn't seek out to distract from your question, just saw an opportunity to dump it. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob at all, Sluzzelin. Your comment[20] is a thoughtful and relevant point, well made. We need more such reflections on anomalies of practice.

Thanks for taking the time to voice it, and for be kind enough to spot that it might not be perceived as you intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you?

As you know, right now the Chris Mullin page leads directly to the basketball player, which I find a tad ridiculous, as outside of the US, hardly anyone has heard of him, and in Britain when they say Chris Mullin they clearly refer to the politician Chris Mullin (politician).

I've started a discussion on the Talk:Chris Mullin page, under the title Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August_2020, and would really appreciate it if you could voice your piece there.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Maxim.il89, both for starting the discussion and for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit other people's messages. Salvio 13:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Salvio. That was an an error: I meant to put the (ec) on my own post, but misplaced it. Thanks for the fix.[21] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha, thanks for the clarification (and sorry if I appeared grumpy, I was actualy confused). Best. Salvio 14:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Salvio. A screw-up like that one of mine is confusing to others. All good wishes to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning - hope all is still well in lockdown. Regardless of the outcome, that was one of the nicest and sincere threads I've ever seen at AN/ANI, esp. when you state that you're not a fan of Justin. For once common sense was applied over "rulez-is-rulez". Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, Lugnuts. That's v kind of you.

I was pleased with the outcome. Not as good as I wanted, but good enough. The fact that Justin and I don't get on doesn't alter the fact that he is clearly a highly-committed and extraordinarily productive Wikipedian who taken a minor stumble under severe provocation. So when I saw what had happened I was horrified. A collaborative environment should not treat anyone with such robotic harshness: in this life, context always matters.

I'm doing OKish with lockdown, thanks. It's a downer, but I'm surviving, while my clothes shrink <grin>. Hope you are OK too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes the bigger picture is overlooked. OK here, thanks. Very fortunate to be able to work from home, so every cloud and all that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Bank St Peter's F.C. players has been nominated for merging. 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. Lettler^hello 16:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request for you, please delete this page Draft:Marr Ji-hyun which was unknowingly created by myself 6 months ago. Actually there is already a page for the above-mentioned player and I wasn't aware at that time. Thanks ~ Zoglophie (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoglophie

I am not an admin any more, so I can't delete it. But if you just tag it with {{db-g7}}, some admin will delete it within a few hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the articles that I create. I value your input, however I use a tool called PrepBio and it creates categories. So asking me to not create these categories (twice) misses the point. I am not creating these to annoy you, that is what the tool does. HTH Victuallers (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victuallers.

I dunno how my fixes give the impression that I might have thought you were doing this to annoy me ... but if it did that impression, i am sorry.

Look, the issue is that whatever tools are used, WP:REDNOT still applies, and per REDNOT

A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category.

So if your tool places a page in a red-linked category, please can you either create the category or remove it from the page. That's all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers, you may not be aware that there is a flood of hundreds of such errors every day, which end up at Special:WantedCategories. It takes many dozens of hours every week to keep on top of that flood, so several editors working on this sue other tools to find more recent errors, so that it doesn't all land in one big flood when Special:WantedCategories is updated every few days.

I don't usually leave pings when I fix them, but when I see an editor making the same mistake repeatedly, I add a ping to catch their attention. That's what I did in your case.

It takes only a few seconds to cast your eye to the bottom of the page and see any redlinked categories. If there are, it takes only a few seconds to use WP:HOTCAT to remove them. Please can you do that, rather than leaving them for others to fix? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the good work that's going on and I know it only takes a few seconds. Thank you again for your input. I don't want to ignore your reminders but I do reserve the right to decide which improvement I make next. You may feel that repeated reminders to the same person is constructive - but you do realise that you have now reminded me four times of something you see as obvious. You may be surprised to find that I could see this obvious too (irrespective of the repeated reminders). Do keep up the good work, but please don't repeat the idea that I am making "the same mistake" when I have told you (now twice (sorry)) that I didn't choose to create that category. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers, "tool did it" is no excuse. You are responsible for the output of any tool you use. If you choose to use a tool to categorise an article, please clean up after it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may see it as an excuse, but why would I need an excuse? or offer one? I'm just failing to do it before you remind me ... repeatedly. I don't intend to repeat myself again. Victuallers (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers, if you don't do it promptly, then it falls into the cleanup lists used by other editors. Please stop leaving this for others to clean up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You quote REDNOT as absolute ... but it goes on to say "or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists". i.e. these things need to be fixed. No argument, but whilst an article is being created it will not comply with everyone's idea of what needs fixing first. We work together on this. The article was worked on all today. I don't/no one create(s) error free articles.

I'm aware of the rule ... and I only thought you were annoyed because you had reminded me once, twice and now three times

Its a new article ... and it has a red category.I wish we had a 1000 more like that. I would gladly delete the red links. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers, every time I fix such a redlink, I add to the edit summary a std phrase: — Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT. If the same editor is doing it repeatedly, I add a ping.

This is simple: don't leave an article in a redlinked category. If a category which you add is redlinked, please fix that promptly, because otherwise it appears on someone else's worklist ... and you don't want to go around making work for others, do you? It is a bit annoying, so please don't do it.

Look at REDNOT:

A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category

It doesn't say "except for a few days". It says "never". So please try not to do it.

You don't have to get all the categorisation finished first time. You can add more cats whenever you want, just as you can add more text or an infobox or whatever. Just please don't leave it in redlinked cats, because the only way that the thankless task of clearing the deluge of errors can be handled effectively by the editors who do this work is to clear the errors promptly. Please don't make work for those who do the cleanup.

One technique which helps in multiple ways is to crate new drafts in your your sandbox, move them to mainspace when ready, and then add the categories. That is a good solution for everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of this encounter with Chris.Sherlock, so that this is all accessible in my talk archives

The end result was WP:BOOMERANG: Chris.sherlock banned from interacting with me[22].

In the course of the discussion, I discovered that in addition to trolling me at WP:AN and at WT:WOMRED (which I was aware of), Chris had had also made his only-ever visit to CFD under his current account, to troll me multiple times[23]. Events summarised in this post by me[24].

Also note Special:PermaLink/916237175#Chris.Sherlock/Letsbefiends_unblock_request Chris.sherlock's Sept 2019 request to be unblocked after 3 years, where Iridescent noted[25] of Chris this editor rightfully earned a well-deserved reputation as a vicious and aggressive bully.

Since being unblocked despite that warning, Chris.sherlock launched a vendetta against DuncanHill (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Editor_emptying_categories_then_requesting_CfD,_refuses_to_discuss_or_use_WP:CFD). I defended Duncan's exemplary conduct in that episode, and subsequently Chjris launched this series of attempts to troll me. That's why I have made this log entry, because I fear that if Chris returns, this will all happen again, and these notes may be helpful ... but I hope that my fears are misplaced, and that these notes will never be needed again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, BHG,

I hesitate to add to your heavy workload but you created some cricket & Asian sport categories that have been empty for a few days. Maybe they could get added to what I'm sure is a lengthy "to do" list. I'm sure when you created them, you had some idea which pages/subcategories would be assigned to them. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz.

It looks like some templates have not purged. I'll sort it out now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PS @Liz: I have done null edits to purge the cricket-by-year categories, and will do the same for the Asian sport cats.

However, there is something systemically awry here.

• I created those cricket decade categories in these 30 edits ending 21:43, 23 August 2020.
• Then at 21:43, 23 August 2020, I modified[26] Template:Year in cricket category header to make it populate those categories.

The task of updating the categories is then added by the server software to the WP:JOBQUEUE. A decade ago, that sort of update could take weeks, but for the last few years it has been done very promptly. A small set like that usually takes minutes, but even bigger sets are processed relatively soon. E.g. a week ago, I did an update to a template transcluded on 184,000 categories, and it was processed within 48 hours (I had tracking categories to monitor it).

So it's odd and worrying that these small sets of a few hundred articles have take so long to be processed.

Obviously, it's not your job or one to monitor the WP:JOBQUEUE. But I want to alert you to this problem, because the lack of updates is going to lead to all sorts of weird glitches in categorisation ... including lots of spurious entries in Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. So I suggest holding off for a few days on tagging empty categories, until the server sorts itself out.

There is nothing about this at WP:VPT, which is odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that I had forgotten to do the Asian categories. Sorry. Done now, in these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya BHG, I am creating a list at User:Usedtobecool/Tea of editors willing to be pinged to the Teahouse on occasions that would benefit from subject-specific expertise. I was wondering if you would be interested. I am thinking of adding you for "Categories" and possibly "Bots" with your permission; you are free to add yourself to or remove yourself from any row on the list. I don't expect you'd be pinged more than a few times a year. Currently, the Teahouse has Wikipedia:Teahouse#Guideline on categorization of transcontinental countries in lists in "Foreign relations of" articles; this might be the sort of discussion you get called to help with. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, I need, if you can, suggestions on who else to reach out to, for categories, and any other subject; editors who you know to be active and think might be interested. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Since this was one of several you added a plural category to and started RMs for (like Novae) I'm wandering what you think should be done with this one? Page views[[27]] show that the animal got 33,656 views compared to only 282 for the place and 563 for the band. By long-term significance the animal is clearly the primary topic so I'd say either there is no primary topic or its the animal. I would also note that its on User:Certes/misdirected links#Examples because there were 18 errors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Thank for the headsup. I agree: either there is no primary topic or its the animal. But I find to hard see any entirely plausible case that there is no primary topic. Will you open the RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RM started, obviously this time (unlike Novae for example) we won't see the "there's no other article that needs this title" (or similar) anyway since Piranhas (2019 film) gets more than 4x the views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Talk:Piranhas#Requested_move_29_August_2020 is a fine nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm not sure a RM is even needed since I don't see how someone could reasonably object but I suppose we have had some similar cases of objections and it can also determine where the plural form points to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here. Best, Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod

Where's the banditry? Has any of their edits done any harm?

The few which I have checked all seem sound, e.g. [28].

Unless some damage is being done, then I think the term you should be using is "helper", not "bandit". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed that these edits were undesirable where all the articles fit on a single page & were less than 100. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Johnbod, we don't agree about that.

The whole point of {{CatAutoTOC}} is that page size doesn't matter, because the TOC won't be generated unless needed. So it can safely be added indiscriminately, provided that it's not already supplied through a category header:

• If it is added to a small category which grows, it will start displaying a TOC when needed.
• If it is added to a large category which shrinks, it will stop displaying the TOC when no longer needed.
• If it is added to a small category which stays small, it will never do anything.

So what's the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HI BHG, please could you assist with replacing templates as offered here? [29] E.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:2020_in_Puerto_Rican_sport – Fayenatic London 16:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fayenatic

It seems that Guam was actually OK, but that Puerto Rico does use the wretched {{Year by category}} which needs fixing. (I must have lazily assumed that Guam was the same).

I am on the Puerto Rico ones now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic: I did 18 of them, in these edits. @Ymblanter had done the rest manually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for that. – Fayenatic London 23:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've proposed that this article be deleted as redundant. Since you have edited it in the past, I wanted to alert you to the proposal: Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Hagar333, WP:Teahouse is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Hagar333 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagar333, you are not making this easy for yourself.

I posted[30] a WP:Teahouse invitation on your talk page. I urge you to discuss this at the Teahouse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, the page under discussion had requests to provide missing page number for articles and various other information. I looked up all the page numbers. It took hours to do. This was what was requested. You eliminated all of it, claiming it was unsourced. You made this claim because you didn't bother to look at the sources, i.e., the professional journals with the page numbers.

You behavior is completely unprofessional. If you were in a university, charges could be brought against you for this behavior. Please stop acting like a bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Hagar, well done consulting the sources. But per WP:V and WP:BLP, you need to actually WP:CITE those sources.

Getting angry and making wild allegations about me won't alter the fact that you need to use inline citations. I urge you again to take up that invitation to the WP:Teahouse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You eliminated all the page numbers and publisher information that was requested! You are in the wrong here.

I was in the process of providing citations. You eliminated everything.

This took several days of work. You just destroyed everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, going through the maintenance category tree for the {{Authority control}} template, I stumbled upon this empty category Category:Miscellaneous pages with ' .. id .. ' identifiers created by you in 2017. There are similar useful non-empty categories with ' .. id .. ' being replaced by the name of an actual identifier. This would suggest that this particular category was either created in error (perhaps while batch creating such categories), or to track some error in a template or module normally populating the other [[Category:Miscellaneous pages with ID identifiers]] categories. Can you shed some light on this? Which template or module populates it? Is or was it actually useful for some purpose? Or can we delete it so it does not cause confusion? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthiaspaul, and thanks for the msg.

I checked back on my contribs for that day, and find that I was busy clearing up Special:WantedCategories. So that was one of several category pages which I created that day because they were non-empty. Unfortunately, I have no idea what process was populating it, and whether it was populated as a result of a now-fixed coding error or whether the code is still active somewhere but the problems have been fixed. There are no backlinks to Category:Miscellaneous pages with ' .. id .. ' identifiers, and all I can tell you is that I created it to fix a WP:REDNOT error.

Ideally, we would have a complete set of two-way links between templates/modules and their tracking category: i.e. every tracking category would link to the template(s) which populate it, and every template would document its tracking categories. Sadly, that is not the case, so we are left with pages like this whose purpose is a mystery.

I am sorry that I can't be more helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks and never mind, but I think we should then delete it so it cannot cause further confusion. I have started a thread discussing the cleanup of this and other old and long abandoned AC tracking categories over at Template talk:Authority_control#Cleaning_up_unused_cats_being_leftovers_from_coding_errors,_parameter_renames_and_naming_scheme_changes.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, @Matthiaspaul. I will add a comment at the Template talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, a lot of the US state WikiProject template are subst-only, which causes havoc with AnomieBOT when they're not listed on User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. I've gone ahead and added those, but in the future if you're going to be adding a lot of subst-only templates please make sure to update the list first. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac

Sorry about that, but this is really something which should be handled entirely by the bots. I created a lot of new categories yesterday (I think about 1600), and took the trouble to do another AWB run add WikiProject banners to them. Adding {{WikiProject StateName}} was possible only by using a bit of complex parseing of the category page title (e.g. {{subst:str crop|{{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|6}}|10}}), and I took care to do a lot of sample-checking that this was producing the right output.

I have done similar tasks for series of country categories, creating the pass-through templates if needed. I would have hoped that the response would be something along the lines of "thanks, good work". But it seems not.

A big run like that isn't really feasible with AWB if some project banners are to be substed: that needs more complex code which requires a custom module to determine which banners to subst. So adding them as simple transclusions is the only way to do the job.

It seems that the issue here is that some list of desired substs had not been updated. Thank you for fixing that, but I intend to proceed with my approach of adding {{WikiProject Foo}} where it works and produces the right result. Those who want such templates to be substed can look after that, but please don't go problematising my edits. Those ~1600 edits of mine did the job they set out to do, with no errors ... and the fact that they exposed some glitches in the substing system is beyond the remit of my task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was neither criticizing nor complaining, just mentioning something that you may want to add to your workflow and/or something to consider for next time. We recently had to drop AnomieBOT's "maximum transclusions" from 100 to 5 due to vandalism, so what wasn't an issue two months ago now is a bit of a pain. Keep up the good work. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Primefac. Seems we may have got some wires crossed.

Look, I do see the problem, and thanks to you for fixing the issue with the bot. But I think that the task of adding project banners needs to be kept simple, and editors need to be able to just add {{WikiProject Foo}} without worrying about whether the template should be substed. Otherwise the job just gets too complex, and in my uses I know I'd end up substing some banners which should not be substed, which would be very messy. Done on a big scale, that would justfiably earn me a barrage of rotten fruit.

AFAICS, the worst that's going to happen if substing isn't done is that the page will display the banner correctly and categorise the talk page correctly, but that maintenance of the template banner may be a little impeded if the canonical template is not used. That seems to me to be something that arises rarely (basically only when the banners params are reconfigured), so if such reconfig is needed then it can be dealt with on by one-off WP:BOTREQ if and when such maintenance occurs. Obviously, it's handier to have it all done automatically, but it's not a huge deal if the automation doesn't work.

That issue of Anomie's limits being reduced is obviously a big nuisance. Damn vandals. I don't know if this is technically feasible, but I had an idea for protecting the bot against vandalism: how about the bot only handles a subst if the template which needs to be substed is protected? Even setting semi-protection as the threshold would put such templates beyond the reach of most vandals.

I am aware that this would need a tweak to WP:Protection policy, but it fits with a view I have had for a long time: that since templates allow a single edit to impact multiple pages, they are a vulnerability. Current practice is normally to apply no protection below 500 transclusions, but leaves scope for a lot of mischief, esp with the category header templates which I do a lot of work on. It also creates a horrible vulnerability for templates which must be substed, where there is real scope for mischief and tracing the vandalism may be hard.

Anyway, just an idea for how Anomie's horribly low limit of 5 transclusions might be raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]