User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive08

Please click the "new section" tab above to add a new message below.

If you are a registered user and I left a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together. If I fail to respond within a few days, please poke me on this page. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1 (9 Sept 2006 – 20 Aug 2007)
Archive 2 (21 Aug 2007 – 17 Apr 2008)
Archive 3 (18 Apr – 31 Dec 2008)
Archive 4 (2009) • Archive 5 (2010)
Archive 6 (2011) • Archive 7 (Jan–Jun 2012)

Rationale templates

You took up my idea on software covers, which as it's the same template would make the video game cover one redundant :)

You might also want to read User_talk:Salavat#New_rationale_templates_for_review Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

I'm (slowly) working my way through the CfD backlog pages. I've commented in several so far (with likely more to come). In particular at this moment, please check out June 6. - jc37 20:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I closed one as "multiple upmerge". Can Cydebot handle that from the normal Working page? – Fayenatic London 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once each entry is removed from the cat for the first upmerge, it's empty, and so nothing would be sent into the other, afaik. I believe multiple merge closes usually go to the manual page. - jc37 22:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that's it. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development projects in Shanghai

This CfD has just been closed to split as nominated, pinging you as requested. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Fayenatic London 22:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara (name) edit

Thank you for your recent message of welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate the offer of help, and hope to improve on editing skills (and protocol) with experience. My question deals specifically with your edit of my entry under Tamara (name). You deleted "tamara Morton" with the notation that I failed to demonstrate noteworthiness. Should I have referenced an outside link, such as the person's IMDB page? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3141210/ Although the subject of my submission does not have a presence on Wikipedia, her noteworthiness seems at least comparable to two accepted submissions (Tamara Dhia and Tamara Saliman) who do. Is a personal Wikipedia page reference simply desired or required? Gulbenk (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for your positive response. As far as I know Wikipedia has no specific guideline on what level of notability and citation is required for entries in a list, and in different sorts of lists I sometimes leave an entry that has only a citation; but IMHO lists of people on anthroponymy (human name) pages are only useful as indexes to existing Wikipedia articles on people with that name. The guideline WP:NOTDIRECTORY supports my view here. Please also note that IMDB on its own is not considered a sufficiently reliable source either for verification or as evidence of notability. If there are a couple of press articles about Tamara Morton, feel free to start an article. I haven't checked the other pages that you referred to, and – meaning no offence – WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Can you figure out a way to get some Level -1 one templates for things like missing sources implemented in Twinkle?

I'd like a note that says " Did you forget to say this is your image?" or equivalent... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but I'm the wrong person to ask. I know almost nothing about TW, and am generally distrustful of semi-automated editing tools as I see many mistakes or misleading edit summaries left by editors who do use them. – Fayenatic London 18:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note the user notification side of {{Missing description}} could be improved as well. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Talk:Matching_principle.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Police brutality

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_1#Police_brutality

Also, I did a bold closure at the end of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 1. I'll probably implement it myself. I would welcome your feedback. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly reads fine to me.

The last sentence concerns me. If I were to guess, it looks like you started to write this up as comments, and changed it to a closure. Talking in third-person: "The closing admin..." (Unless you were trying to quote "best practices" for a closer or something?) - jc37 19:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the record, that's not what happened. I'll change that to "editor(s) implementing..." to avoid that impression. – Fayenatic London 07:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal residences in Thailand

I'm about to close this category discussion, and thought I'd notify you so that you can add notes to the categories as mentioned in your comments at the CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -

Done. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted sockpuppet

What is the proper course of action when a new editor admits to being a sock of a permanently blocked editor? As far as I can see, he continues to engage in the same kind of behavior that got him blocked, i.e., an untoward obsession with film genres to the point that he changes said genres against consensus. Pé de Chinelo has never stopped editing, preferring to use IP socks in the 201 range to continue his rampage across Wikipedia. This makes the new user's plea "I've stopped being a vandal" ring hollow. MarnetteD can tell you how much damage the IPs have done to the project.

My preferred approach to this matter would be for Pé to request that his original account be restored, to reveal the names of all sockpuppets he has used, to agree to abide by WP policy, to seek consensus through discussion with other editors, and to refrain from using IP addresses for editing. If he were to do so, we might be able to take seriously his claim to have renounced vandalism, and we might be inclined to show good faith in the future. But, simply creating another sock account and going back to the same behavior is not the way to be welcomed back into the community. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fayenatic london. I just wanted to let you know that I was working on filing this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo when the user admitted to being Pe. While I concur with RJ's assessment of what Pe needs to do to return to editing I would also point out that he is still all to willing to make personal attacks on Andrzejbanas and a full and heartfelt apology to that editor would be in order before any return to editing should be considered. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you are both on the right lines, although I have little experience of these matters. I recommend that you open an "incident" on this case at WP:AN/I, recommending a topic ban (see WP:RESTRICT), e.g. films & video games, for at least 6 months. This would give the editor an opportunity to demonstrate edits in good faith without winding up the Film project. Although Marnette has opened an SPI, I don't think there is any need to wait for a conclusion on that before launching an incident at ANI, given the new editor's admission. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't attack Andrzejbanas anymore, I was calling his attention to see that the information on Hunger Games was cited and there was no need to revert a genre that has been sourced by a reliable source. I have stopped definitely trying to add action to the lord of the rings films. I think I can be useful for wikipedia now, providing sources that I find, StarShopSTX (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found that... but later the same day (12 July) you called him a bitch. That's an attack. I think that it would be in your best interests (as well as others') for you to take a long break from editing pages about films. – Fayenatic London 07:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to note that this user has also made claims in the past of "oh, i don't vandalize anymore" and then returned to it. I always want to be civil, but watch out for this wolf in sheep's clothing. He's been doing it for years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flaviobm

Hi, there's is a editwarrior in the dark knight rises page stubbornly editwarring, and he is sending me alerts through IP addresses. He is brazilian, username Flaviobm, and I just want to let clear that I am not him or his socket. Give a look at him, he is been stubborn. StarShopSTX (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video rationale

I closed this discussion as merge. So, go for it! Let me know if you need any help, or there are any issues. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I have finished that along with all required tidying-up. PLMK if I missed anything. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Edwards (healer)

Hi, I began to start an article on the above subject to find an article on him had been removed as recently as June. Can you tell me what the problem was so I can avoid it? Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably seen this by now on the deletion log, but the rationale for the PROD was: "insufficient evidence of notability". I also found that it needed to be deleted anyway as a copyright violation from [1]

I noticed that you have just created a longer article. Please ensure that you are writing (i) original sentences, (ii) for which the stated facts can be verified from the sources. I haven't checked your sources, but please also look at WP:IRS if you haven't already. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 13:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK but....

I have no objection in removing PROD tag from Independent woman‎.However, the user should have mentioned that he/she was removing the tag with reason so as to prevent confusion.I thought that they were trying to remove the tag with other edit summaries.Cheers TheStrike Σagle 16:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StatusTop

Feel free to delete my templates in favour of [[Template:Statustop]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamcoltra (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. CfD for various police brutality categories

I noticed you closed this CfD as "listify and delete categories for cases by country" — yet most of the categories remain there to this day. Would it be all right if I redirected each of them to the main human rights categories of their respective countries, all the while adding this category to each of the pages that have been listed? Master&Expert (Talk) 07:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to help, and for asking first. The red links show the progress that I have been making this week. I started with Europe, which is now done, because I had the idea of creating lists by continent, but then I decided simply to use the worldwide list if there were not enough articles in any one country to start a national list. I will therefore press on by merging the small categories into the worldwide list; so I suggest you leave me to it (or help by adding to List of cases of police brutality).

If I don't make much progress, you could upmerge the smallest categories to Category:Police brutality, but consider also whether the pages should be added to "Police misconduct in X" and "Human rights in X". Please leave the larger categories as they can be made into standalone lists. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, just checking with you. Thanks, much obliged. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 09:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foresters Friendly Society

Hi, The accounts on the Societies website show the Societies accounts at the 31st December 2011, what I have details are the Courts (branches) consolidated accounts for 2011, so I've amended it to show the distinction. Also, most of the material on the website was before the Annual conference in June 2012.

As a Past District Chief Ranger of the society, I can speak with some authority on the matter, I've re-written about the plight of the Chief Executive, hopefully in a more neutral way Vtr1781249 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but the change is not yet covered on the website (Board). Before removing it from the article I searched in vain for other publicly-available sources to support it. Please read the policy WP:No original research; it's a bit hard to get your head around, especially when you are in a position to know the matter for a fact, but the point is that if something has not been reported elsewhere, then Wikipedia is not the place to release the information to the world. – Fayenatic London 08:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a citation as requested, however, the reason why the main web-site has not been updated since the AGM in June, is because the CEO is missing from the board Vtr1781249 (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thanks and well done. I have added the homepage of that website under "External Links" and tidied up the formatting. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS!

I make hundreds of spelling and grammar corrections so it is inevitable that one or two is corrected incorrectly.

Sorry.

I'm like the English professor in the Mens Room - "I don't write on the walls. I just correct the spelling and grammar."

EoGuy (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your help with/work on the articles on Jeu Provencal and Boule lyonnaise!

-) StephenFerg (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

If you still don't have JSTOR access, let me know if you want an article and I'll e-mail it to you within 24 hours at most. ColaXtra (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks! – Fayenatic London 21:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ask for as many and as often as you please. ColaXtra (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic non-free media content

Hi Fayenatic! I am trying to standardize and clean-up Category:Olympic Games logos and, in order to do so, I think new categories must be created. I was thinking what would be the best structure regarding naming conventions and type of licensing. I came up with this:

~~Category:Olympic brands~~ Category:Olympic Games images

I would like to have some feedback about that. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have suggested some changes above. How should this fit with Category:Olympic symbols? Should "symbols" be kept for international long-lasting icons, and "brands" be used for single-nation or single-Games icons? – Fayenatic London 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Olympic Games brands should be used to separate the non-free media content from the articles about Olympic symbols, which are categorized by Category:Olympic symbols. The Category:Olympic Games logos also encompasses non-Games logos (IOC Sessions, Bids, National Olympic Committees), therefore, I think Category:Olympic logos would be more appropriate. Same for Category:Olympic brands. I also suggested the use of Olympic instead of Olympic Games in the other categories as an standardization. Category:Olympics is oriented towards Olympic rather than Olympic Games, considering that Category:Olympic mascots is already in use. Felipe Menegaz 19:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then I think the top category for these should be "images" rather than "brands". Don't include the Category:Olympic mascots, but create a new category for the non-free images, e.g. Category:Non-free images of Olympic mascots. Perhaps Category:Images of Olympic mascots will be a suitable name, because the free ones can be transferred to Commons, leaving only the non-free ones as Wikipedia files.

Even though "Olympic" seems to be accepted for mascots and symbols, I think "Olympic Games bid" should be used rather than "Olympic bid". I'm not keen on "Olympic pictograms" either. The main topic is either "Olympic Games" or "Olympics", so I think we should only use "Olympic" as an adjective within phrases that are widely used. That's just my opinion. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Category:Olympic Games images also fails, considering it encompasses non-Games images... Felipe Menegaz 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Category:Olympics relates to Olympic Games. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Olympic Committee logos, IOC Session logos... Felipe Menegaz 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They all relate to sub-categories of the subject Olympic Games. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just think that since there are images not related specifically to the Games within Category:Olympic Games logos and Category:Olympic Games images, they should have other name. IOC Session logos are placed directly in Category:Olympic Games logos... Felipe Menegaz 18:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to you adding sub-categories. I just think you should use "Olympics" or "Olympic Games" rather than "Olympic" as an adjective for new subjects. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympics images is okay? Felipe Menegaz 19:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK! – Fayenatic London 19:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_nominations.
Message added 03:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For improving the Poplar HARCA article back in the day! I live in the area of Poplar HARCA - if you do too, I'd love to invite you out for a drink sometime! The Cavalry (Message me) 22:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I come for drink too? Gordo (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's do it! I would be glad to have my wikiland-collaborator Gordo along too. – Fayenatic London 18:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I'll drop you both an email. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shame that you both missed my "night walks".... ho hum. Gordo (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monika (given name)

Hi Fayenatic, just dropped by to thank you for repairing my mistake last night with Monika (given name) when I mistakenly merged six references into one instead of into two. I must look more carefully when tidying up! Most grateful — Hebrides (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics characters in other media

Category:Comics characters in other media

I suggest doing a group rename of the related pages, first. Maybe start the discussion at the WikiProject, and note the discussion on the comics noticeboard. (And good luck with all the tagging : ) - jc37 17:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. – Fayenatic London 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works adapted for other media

Category:Works adapted for other media

Due to the vagueness of the word "media", and because we use the term for files/images on Wikipedia, I suggest that we (as we have been) entirely deprecate the use of the word "media" when in regards to book/film/television/etc. - jc37 12:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, happy to do a G7 rename; what do you suggest? Category:Works adapted into other works? – Fayenatic London 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. (Use of "other" isn't the greatest in cats either, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.)

All that aside a moment, I'm wondering if this tree should exist. It's essentially the reverse of Works based on works. (If it is needed, cool, I'm just saying I don't know.) - jc37 12:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the contents, I just spotted the similarity put them together. This tree is less well populated than the categories for the later adaptations (works based on works), but as long as the contents exist, I think it is good to connect them. All the alternatives that I can think of are longer, e.g.:

Original works on which others were based
Works that were the source of later adaptations
Works that were the basis for later adaptations

– Fayenatic London 13:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking...

Would it only include those 2 subcats? or were there others? - jc37 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only found those two last night. If the wording is widened to include source works for adaptations in the same medium, it would encompass Category:Television programs remade overseas. I wouldn't be surprised to discover cats for literature adapted to other literature, but haven't found them yet. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which led me to spin-offs, which is a W based on W subcat. If we aren't very careful in naming (inclusion criteria), these two trees could confusingly intertwine, or could become entire duplicates of each other.

Works the result of another work vs works which are the source of other works. And this gets nuts when we start getting spin offs of spin offs. I'm thinking of All in the family in one case, and the Jack Benny Show in another. (There's also the US/UK versions of shows, which also could have spin offs.)

Still thinking to try to figure this out : ) - jc37 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more I think we should rename any such cats to match the "based on" pattern.

For example, aren't Television shows re-produced overseas just Works based on television?

Or in other words, we should probably avoid "adapted to", but rather just "adapted from". It's merely a question of how we name a cat.

And incidentally, I can see this as another argument for not using "adapted" (but instead "based on"), because we would have people creating a ton of cats by merely changing a preposition : ) - jc37 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore the television category; I had misread which way round that was; you're right, it is W based on W.

However, Category:Works adapted into films with its four sub-cats, and Category:Radio series that were transferred to television, are for the source works, not the adaptations. I think these should have a head category, and it should be wider than the initial name to include any sub-cats for sources that were later adapted within the same medium, e.g. Category:Works on which others were based (although adding "original" at the start would be clearer still). – Fayenatic London 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I think about the various types of literature (novels, short stories, even poems) which have been adapted into television shows/episodes, or even parts of episodes, and this without getting into examples of where an author used several stories and wove them together...

"Based on" leaves us dealing with source material, and not getting into "how much" of the finished product is "based on" the source. But once we start to get involved in the reverse...

Plus, the cats don't (can't) tell the name of the recipient production. What if the story and the film have different names?

Blade Runner would be a great example of all of this.

If it weren't for these issues (which would need explanation in a list), I could almost see film adaptations from literature.

As for the radio one, that would seem to more be a transferral of medium, and not so much an "adaptation". Jack Benny being an example. I don't think we should say that the Jack Benny Show was based on the Jack Benny Show, which was based on the Jack Benny show, which was... : ) - jc37 21:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with these categories based on your objections or example. The articles where the category is used would have to state the related work, and would often indicate whether one was "closely" or just "loosely" based on the other. I don't see that these reverse categories are any more difficult than the "based on" categories. Do Androids Dream... states that it "served as the primary basis for" Blade Runner, just as the latter says it "is loosely based on the novel".

As for the radio cat, not all the shows were direct transfer of medium, e.g. the team from On The Hour "subsequently made a television series loosely based on it called The Day Today."

So IMHO these categories are as justifiable as "W based on W" and should be grouped as having the reverse in common. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I said several things without more clearly explaining them. My apologies for being unclear. I think I need to think about how to better explain what I'm trying to convey : ) - jc37 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going on a wikibreak of indeterminate length. I'd like to discuss this more when I return if you're still willing : )

Meanwhile, if you're willing, would you look through the works based on literature and its subcats (and subcats of subcats ad infinitum) to see about some standardisation to the "based on" naming? - jc37 15:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-offs

As a spin-off discussion, I think Category:Television spin-offs needs a discussion. If Category:Television spin-offs was shorthand for "TV based on TV", that might be useful; but within a lot of the series-specific sub-cats, "Foo spin-offs" seems to be interpreted as "Works based on Foo", including different media. The scope of the word as explained in the pages Spin-off and List of television spin-offs suggests to me that these categories serve no useful purpose distinct from "Works based on TV" etc, and should be merged. What do you think? – Fayenatic London 12:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-offs are slightly different. For one thing it's an industry-used term. And the spin off, isn't based on the other work, only that it exists in the same "universe". Often as a vehicle for popular secondary characters in the source show to be showcased as leading characters in the spin-off. - jc37 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, perhaps we can leave spin-offs. I've just remembered that I recently created Category:Works based on Doctor Who and separated the contents which were previously mixed in with Category:Doctor Who spin-offs. Do you think I got that split about right? Note that of the DW spin-offs sub-cats, only K-9, SJA and Torchwood were TV spin-offs; the rest were in other media. – Fayenatic London 20:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to when I return : ) - jc37 15:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

What just happened on Syed Zaheer Haider Zaidi? I saw you'd prodded it at the same time I was tagging it A7. Thinking you knew better, I undid myself, then saw you'd reinstated my tag. Why was my tag preferable to your prod? Does it have something to do with User:Ynushui's A7 deletion of the page an hour ago (which I didn't see until I watchlisted the page?) Still pretty new at NPP. BusterD (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I simply decided that I had been unnecessarily polite and patient by giving it a PROD, and your tag was more appropriate, as clearly lacks any justification for keeping it at present. Also, you had already left a "speedy" message on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see it's been speedied again. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. As an admin, I could have deleted it myself. Perhaps I will, next time. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing MFD's

Hello, when you close MFD's in the future, please follow the exact instructions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions with the correct templates. On the main MFD page, closed discussions are meant to be automatically collapsed. However, because you used the wrong bottom template at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fwax, the code that automatically collapses hidden discussions instead collapsed *all* the discussions on the MFD page beyond the Fwax one, which was very confusing. I've fixed it, but this is something to keep in mind in future. Graham87 09:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English-language Greek songs

I shall accord you the wisdom of Solomon with your closing statements, especially as your earlier comment was delete and salt. My remaining query would be, "What exactly makes a song Greek?" The writers? The performers? The language used for the lyrics? I am actually wondering if "English-language Greek songs" can actually exist? Bottom line, for me, is the category name needs more thought.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thank you. I have posted an apology for closing the CfD, as I had forgotten and then overlooked my previous comment there.

Category:Songs by country is established well enough. Category:Greek songs, like most other national categories, has sub-cats for genres and for Greek singers/bands. If a Greek singer had a hit covering an English song in the original language, it should stay in the sub-category for that singer's songs, so it's within the head category for Greek songs, but I think we would agree that it would not be helpful to categorise it as an English-language Greek song.

Likewise, a song in English which had either a Greek composer or lyricist should generally count as an English-language Greek song... but probably not if the songwriter had emigrated to the US, nor overseas collaborations such as those by Jon and Vangelis.

I suggest that the main criterion should be "first recorded in Greece". Will that work well enough? – Fayenatic London 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure here at all. You have raised more problems to think about. Plus I am on holiday from tomorrow, so don't really want to think about this at the moment. So I will give you a couple of thoughts, firstly WP song articles are about the song, not a particular version. Category:Greek songs is rather poor shorthand meaning songs recorded by Greek singers - and therefore largely a duplication of "Greek-language songs". I understand that categories by recording studio have been deleted in the past, so place where a particular version of a song is recorded is not defining, i.e. Rolling Stones have recorded songs in Jamaica, Chicago, South of France, several different studios in London, LA and probably a number of other places. How about a french tune with english lyrics written later - where would that fall in the scheme? If I wasn't going on holiday I would seriously be considering a deletion review and/or deletion of the new cats created by you. I am being forced to forget about it for a week or so, which is a much better solution! Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. At least the English-language category will be largely depopulated when you return! I will roll out similar category notices on other "songs by language" categories to discourage overpopulation; and other "English-language media" categories too. Have a good holiday! – Fayenatic London 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun removing all those redirects from the cat. Not sure why anybody bothered to add them in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I got onto other countries, I decided not to be so clever. If a song was originally performed by a Greek musician, or is by a Greek composer, so that it could already be in a in sub-category of Greek songs, then it's a Greek song. I just exclude cover versions by Greek artists of existing English-language songs. – Fayenatic London 16:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yemenite jews

I was trying to point that some of the sources could not be validated. A lot of the things mentioned need references as well --Kendite (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Former Olympic sports

Hi Fayenatic

I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 16#Obscure_Olympic_sports as merge to multiple targets, roughly per your suggestion. You had kindly volunteered to implement this, so I thought I would say it's ready to roll whenever you are ready.

Merges listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Multiple_merge_targets .... but note that:

Some of "foo sports competitions" categories are redlinks. This may because they don't exist at all, or are differently named. Please take the merge list as suggestive rather than prescriptive (they are auto-generated)
The merge targets all point to Category:Former Olympic sports, but your suggestion of splitting this into Summer & Winter categories sounds better, so feel free to do it.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Somehow I enjoy this kind of fiddly task. Another admin had set a bot to do part of the work, but there was plenty of follow-up requiring attention. I summarily deleted a couple of the new bot-created categories that were similar to existing ones, and redirected some others. – Fayenatic London 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing led to another, and I found quite a lot to do there in the end! I think it's finished now. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Hall Putsch‎

A note to say, good idea and nice job merging the "stubs" into the main article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Most of them had practically no content independent of the main article. If no-one challenges the merger, I will take Category:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch back to CfD for merging. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I would support that merger. Kierzek (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else has now proposed it, so feel free to comment at this CfD. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G7 speedies

Hi Fayenatic

I see that you speedy renamed two categories per WP:CSD#G7: Category:Archaeological artifacts in Europe [2] and Category:Archaeological artifacts by continent [3].

However, G7 is "author requests deletion", but these categs were not being deleted. They should really have been listed at WP:CFD/S. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't G7 count where a category's creator wants to rename it? I'm sure I've seen other admins close CFDs as "speedy rename" on this basis, and I thought it was also OK to do "immediate" renames on this basis. After all, the creator could manually create a new category and re-categorise the members, and then tag the old empty category for instant deletion under G7. – Fayenatic London 20:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly done the above for my own categories, where I decided that I'd chosen the wrong name initially. Before I was an admin, I'd move the contents and tag the old cat as G7; it got quickly deleted, and nobody ever told me I was working out of process and should have taken my own work to CFD. I don't think you're suggesting that if I now mis-name a new category, then I'd have to take it to CFDS rather than quickly resolve it myself... or are you? And if it is OK for me to implement my own changes of mind, can't I change somebody else's recent work at his own request? If they are deletable, they might as well be discussed at CFD under the newer and perhaps better name. But please do tell me if I'm wrong about this. – Fayenatic London 20:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the procedure line for G7 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria and it does say to list them at WP:CFDS. Sorry, I will do so in future, and wait 48 hours. I assume that I can still fix my own mistakes on an instant basis, though, unless anybody else has already done anything with my erroneous category, or unless I want to use CydeBot. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the poke on my talk page. I'd forgotten about this discussion, so I'm looking at it again with a fresh eye.

I'm glad you found the note at CFDS, but looking at it again it seems a bit odd that effect of this is that a 48-hour delay is needed to rename a category, but no delay is required to delete it. I suspect that the note about the 48-hour delay for renamings should be removed.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On investigation, G7 has gone in and out a few times. Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2010#Speedy rename with agreement of the category creator may have been the first suggestion. It was added to the criteria page on 1 May 2011; removed along with G4 on 29 May 2011; and re-added on 24 June 2012, all of which may have been without specific discussion.

Note that the line about listing at WP:CFDS was written for the C2A–C2D criteria; the line for G7 was then inserted above it.

I would like to propose that some C2A and some G7 can be instantly renamed.

This would require a new paragraph near the top of WP:CFDS:

Administrators may waive the 48-hour delay for renaming in the following limited circumstances:

C2A renamings for correction of clear and unquestionable typos;

G7 renamings where no other editors, including bots, have populated or changed the category since it was created.

What do you think? I would raise this at WT:CFD if you think it's supportable. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestions.

I like the proposal wrt to G7 renamings, and would be happy to support that. I think it would it would be better to impose some sort of time constraint (a week? a months?), so that the exceptions remain focused on helping editors correct their mistakes, rather than risk encouraging any WP:OWNership of the categories.

However, I think I would want to retain the 48-hr delay for C2A renamings. The vast bulk of them will be straightfwd, but in some cases there are quirks of spelling which may not be spotted by those unfamiliar with the intricacies of the topic. The 48-hour delay allow some chance that they will be spotted, thereby avoiding all the disruption of mistaken category moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, re C2A.

By the way, I've just fixed another quirk in the documentation. The "Speedy criteria" section above C1, C2 etc said "Criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to..." etc, but that line was contradicted two paragraphs above itself, re speedy deletion of the General cases for "patent nonsense" or "recreation". I've fixed it to say "The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming ...". I think that deals all cases where these various pages are transcluded into CfD and WP:CSD, but I'd be grateful if you would check that I have harmonised them correctly.

Back to instant G7 renaming: I now think that since we are adding additional criteria, it should not be cited as G7 but become:

C2E: Author requests renaming within 28 days of creating the category, and no other editors, including bots, have populated or changed the category since it was created.

Then it will be simple to add a mention of C2E in the "no delay" paragraph that covers "patent nonsense". Neat? – Fayenatic London 19:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good so far, tho I'm not sure that I have entirely got my head around the interaction between the various speedy rules.

In any case, now that you've worked it into a proposal, I think that that it should be proposed at WT:CFD, so that others can scrutinise it. I don't think there is anything radical, just a clarification of existing process, but it's good to have extra pairs of eyes looking at these things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 21:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-language Mexican songs

Selena was an American singer not Mexican singer. Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 17:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was going by and the fact that Selena was called "the Mexican Madonna", and following "Donde Quiera Que Estés" which seems to have more connections as a "Mexican song". I'll stop categorising her other songs as Mexican. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea she is Mexican American but since she was born in America (Texas) she is American. Thanks, Jona ^{talk to me} 17:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Template_talk:Wikify#Related_category.
Message added 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guoguo12 (Talk) 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning NFUR

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Template talk:Non-free video cover.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Further on NFUR's

The following remain for update along the lines of the code patch already suggested :

Protected

{{Non-free_2D_art}}{{Non-free 3D art}}{{Non-free album cover}}{{Non-free book cover}}{{Non-free comic}}{{Non-free fair use in}}{{Non-free film screenshot}}{{Non-free video game cover}}{{Non-free historic image}}{{Non-free logo}}{{Non-free_television_screenshot}}{{Non-free video game screenshot}}

Protected use similiar param but doesn't use the new categories at present.

Not protected but might need careful handling

{{Non-free Crown copyright}}{{Non-free New Zealand Crown Copyright}}{{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}} {{Non-free Olympics media}}{{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}}{{Non-free Old-50}}{{Non-free Old-70}}

Thanks for looking into this Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I tend to like this sort of work, especially when it can explain to other editors what they need to know. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the first two lists. Please check them, especially {{Non-free promotional}} as I was not sure where the "category handler" line is supposed to go. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whopper_bar.jpg Showing up has having a 'missing' NFUR when it clearly has one :) Can you do category check on the template you edited? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only just noticed your reply, as I had a reply from someone else. Also, I was expecting you to reply in this section of the page, so I have now moved it from below up into this section.

I moved the "category handler" line past another pipe, and that one seems to be working properly now. Please check one that should go the other way. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I or other editors have now updated all the above. – Fayenatic London 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your series of trims (e.g.) to my classifications within the propaganda category tree. However I wanted to let you know that societal engineering, social engineering, and media manipulation are currently the subject of a cfd discussion so these classifications may need to be edited again.

Also, during this cfd and an earlier one, it has become apparent that a number of editors dislike classification. So I am considering reverting all my classification additions. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrew. I spotted after a while that that the others had also been nominated, so I stopped those edits and left a message at WP:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual (as that is where I had started from).

If classification is to be used, there are templates that do the job more efficiently; I think I have seen then in job-by-nationality and biological categories. These automatically adapt to changes in intermediate categories. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginner in need of help with Brick Lane Market article

Hi- I'm editing the Brick Lane Market article for a class project. Our teacher warned us that our contributions could be deleted if we don't have backing from other Wikipedia editors. As a resident of London, I was wondering if you could help my project group by looking over our additions to the article in the next few days. Any advice you have would be much appreciated. Thanks! User talk:D4n2elle/BrickLaneMarket Joey236 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests and their talk page template

Hi, I see you've answered the edit request at Template talk:Non-free video game screenshot. Maybe it just slipped your mind but in such cases please remember to set the request template on the talk page to |answered=yes. Otherwise the request will keep to be displayed at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Actually I was working my way through the list that user:Sfan00 IMG left higher up here on my talk page, rather than responding to the request on the template talk page, so I didn't check that page. I'll have a look at the others in that list now, just in case. – Fayenatic London 11:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also this note regarding the code for implementing the tracking categories. A simple <includeonly></includeonly> will also put instances of the template in user namespace into the tracking categories, which is obviously not desired. I'm going through the "copyright" templates replacing all those <includeonly></includeonly> with what Stefan2 suggested. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll put that modification into the others that I have changed. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a lot of the cases within Template:Non-free Olympics media. I think I got them all, but please let me know if also missed/messed up anything. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments on my Rfa. And {{file other}} looks really handy so I'm now going to use that instead. That said, I have so far only replaced the <includeonly></includeonly> inside the new code block by Sfan00 IMG, but I've left anything else untouched while walking through the templates. And I'm only halfways through Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the template code, a lot of the documentation pages need updating too! This could keep us busy for the rest of the year... – Fayenatic London 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free use rationale biog

Thanks for documenting this. :)

Can you take a look at doucmenting :

{{Non-free use rationale serial publication}} which was intended for magazine covers.
{{Non-free use rationale currency}} ‎ which was for coins and banknotes
{{Non-free use rationale title-card}} which is broadly similiar to {{Non-free use rationale logo}} but ever so subtle different on the vlaues for one of the parameters

These are some specific ones I can recall creating.

I'd also strongly suggesting checking to see if the NFUR templates for other templated rationales are documented fully . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece

I closed the CfD discussion as "no consensus". My closing comment was directed at the nominator, so I thought that I should notify you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; good point, well made.

As for the closure, I don't read Peterkingiron's comments as favouring "keep" of both categories, but a reverse merge with a split. I would support that; I'm sorry I did not return to say so, but I think my original nom is broad enough to cover that result. Nobody expressed support for keeping both categories. Would you be prepared to revise your close accordingly? – Fayenatic London 16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad my closing comment didn't appear bitchy. I had just relisted several discussions with low participation, and thought I would try to make an intended-to-be-helpful point without sniping ... so I'm relieved that it didn't come across wrong.

To be honest, I didn't read Peter's comment as clearly favouring that outcome, and given the low participation I'm reluctant to close in favour of an action. I don't mind doing that in clearcut cases, but this one seems a little muddy. Sorry, but I think it'd be a bit of a stretch.

But feel free to make a new nomination with the revised proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done on Oct 12. I widened it to the Roman one, and then added 7 renamings to make the neighbourhood consistent. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Mark Pigott edits

Fayenatic London, thank you for the advice and assistance. Could you suggest the appropriate way to declare conflict of interest?

I have asked Drm310 if I can copy (with edits) his COI Declaration for the University of Saskatchewan.

I am, in fact, a Paccar employee who has been recently assigned responsibility for updating Paccar-related articles. I will post about it to my user page and the Mark Pigott talk page pending approval of my verbage.

Thank you! Paccar984 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on my talk page as well as on Paccar984's talk page. As I have expressed to him/her, I appreciate his/her honesty in disclosing their COI and willingness to work with more experienced editors. --Drm310 (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum/Oil categories

See also: User_talk:Vegaswikian#Petroleum.2FOil_categories

Hi, Fayenatic london. After looking category:Petroleum and its subcategories, I think there are some issues. Probably the overall tree of subcategories needs some consideration. Particularly, division between Category:Petroleum engineering and Category:Petroleum technology needs a clear separation criteria. Second issue is that category:Petroleum and the higher categories are overloaded with entries which need more specific categories. The third issue is that if the higher categories are using "Petroleum" in their name, a lot of subcategories and category trees are using the word "Oil". Maybe this is not a problem but a clear understanding is needed. I believe that you may have some ideas what to do with these issues. Beagel (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had noticed the variety of naming using "petroleum/oil" but did not look into it; maybe it would stand up to scrutiny anyway. Sorry, I already have too many irons in the fire to help out much with this one at the moment, especially as I will be off-wiki for a few days shortly. I've supported your latest Cfd; keep up the good work! – Fayenatic London 19:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will try to cleanup the parent categories and will see if there is a need to nominate more categories for Cfd. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Branding Officer

Hi Fayenatic. I came across the article Chief Brand Officer. Most of the sources are broken links, blogs, primary, etc. and it's the kind of thing I might usually merge with CCO or CMO (not sure if it fits anywhere actually), but I noticed 5 years ago you defended it against a deletion proposal. Thought I would just get your take on it. Corporate 03:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it just about stands as a worthwhile separate page. When I de-prodded it, I expected that more mentions in WP:RS would be forthcoming. I have just added some better citations. However, it's still marginal, and if you merge it I probably wouldn't revert you.

If the page is kept, I think the list would look better as a table, especially if we had sources for the date that some of the posts were created (as opposed to the appointment of the current post-holders). – Fayenatic London 13:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of maybe just trimming it. The term certainly exists and readers may reasonably want more information, but to say that "brand equity of a company is seen as becoming increasingly dependent on the role of a CBO." Our sources are not compelling enough to really create a very good article, but I hesitate to delete it entirely.

Yah, you could say I'm quite involved in the issue of COI. I'm pretty excited user:Ironholds created a new contact page that has a tab for "article subjects." The net-net of my position statement is that we need to take responsibility for encouraging bad behavior and reverse the trend. If we want COIs to disclose, use Talk pages and offer quality neutral content/corrections/etc., it needs to be a good idea for them to do so. If we do not want COIs to astroturf and spam Wikipedia, we need to make that less appealing. Corporate 17:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (re: Truman Markets article)

Hi, sorry about not getting back to you sooner! I didn't see the message on the talk page although I thought I would get emails for it because I put it on my watchlist. Anyway, the overhaul was a huge improvement, so thank you very much for your feedback and edits! D4n2elle (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union in the Ivory Coast

I just made your proposed move of Rugby union in the Ivory Coast official so that it gets listed on the move page correctly for a wider discussion. You may, or may not want to move your comments accordingly at Talk:Rugby union in the Ivory Coast. Cheers! --Bob247 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -

Done – Fayenatic London 13:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd closed

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_16#Category:Woolworth_companies

Noting closure - jc37 01:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a head category and some "see also" links. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_24#Category:Political_divisions_of_Taiwan, I now favor keeping Taiwan since that is (currently) the name of the main article. I am not a fan of the solution for the main article, but I prefer consistency, therefor now suggesting Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan. ChemTerm (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I have changed my proposal, but not exactly as you suggested. We'll get there! – Fayenatic London 09:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So at least some RoC stays. nice you catched that. ChemTerm (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media

As we use "media" in categories to refer to things in the File: namespace, and because media could mean more than just the plural of the implied "medium of communication" or "medium of presentation" (and because even those can be vague in application), and because it causes problems when grouping other works like toys and pinball machines and games, and so on, we should be deprecating all uses of the word media in category naming.

Specificity and not vagueness for the win : ) - jc37 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded that we should go that far. Category:Mass media is pretty well established and used.

What would you suggest for Stefanomione's new lot, then? Just "works by topic"? – Fayenatic London 15:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the intro to Category:Mass media describes what a problem this is. (I linked to media above as well.)

But as for the discussion, I don't see why we're lumping creative works together with news media and scientific publications... - jc37 15:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in my opinion, we should categorize content by ‘topic’, and not by ‘the means’ (print or electronic ‘media’) content is diffused. After all, the medium is the message, ‘means’ and ‘content’ are equal in their effect (said Marshall McLuhan), and therefore, I think, they should not be differentiated in two categories. So, why split up e.g. Category:Works and media about agriculture in works and media ? The way or the format agricultural information is furnished, shouldn’t be an issue in categorization by topic, I think. The splitout Works/Media introduces a category system that creates confusion, while including them both in broader ‘Works and media’-categories speeds up navigation: in one blink of the eye, you can find information about a particular subject, whatever the format/medium it is collected in and the way it is accessed. Stefanomione (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Category talk:Works and media by interest. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals of country subdivisions

Can Category:Provincial capitals in Africa be upmerged via speedy? ChemTerm (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, C2C. This is WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The case is clearer now that I have tidied up the parent Category:Capitals of country subdivisions; none of the other continents have sub-cats for a particular term such as "province". – Fayenatic London 12:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now on Speedy. ChemTerm (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No full CFD. ChemTerm (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) --- Ups, I meant "now": Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Category:Provincial capitals in Africa. ChemTerm (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of provinces and states

Speedy Category:Coats of arms of provinces and states is on hold. But the hold reason has gone. ChemTerm (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in the section "On hold pending other discussion"; the point has been resolved, so you can move it back now. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now put it as a procedural question. ChemTerm (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nicole Scherzinger album covers

Category:Nicole Scherzinger album covers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Statυs (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African newspaper journalists

Hi Fayenatic. When Category:African newspaper journalists was discussed at CfD, it was kept basically to catch articles that belong in national subcategories that have yet to be created. But national subcategories where meant to also be categorized in Category:Newspaper journalists since we don't want to isolate Category:Malian newspaper journalists in a continental category. The same principle is used in Category:Journalists by nationality and Category:African journalists. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just read the CfD and don't see any argument supporting that "principle", which would be an exception to WP:SUBCAT. In particular, User:BrownHairedGirl argued that "The articles currently in this categ should be diffused to subcats, but the category itself should stay"; N.B. subcats, not sibling cats as well. That doesn't make sense to me.

Instead, I have set up a "by nationality" category as a sibling of the continental category, like those in Category:Newspaper editors. I trust that is acceptable to all. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's wrong but perhaps it does need to be clarified at CfD. I'll do that. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, I suggest you pick up the journalists and editors categories together, as they now mirror each other. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... A few hours went by between the start and the end of this conversation so I misunderstood your 19:08 comment. I'm an idiot. I don't know if you should trust that it is acceptable to all but it certainly is acceptable to me. What I'm strongly opposed to are continental subcategories that prevent readers from having all nations in one convenient category and so long as we have that, I don't really want to ruffle any feathers. But before I realized what you meant, I started Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_12#Category:European_newspaper_editors but maybe I'll just retract it. Cheers and sorry for the misunderstanding. Pichpich (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! That may be partly my fault, as I did edit my comment here a couple of times. I think the African categories should stay as part of Category:African journalism. If you are willing to retract your nomination of this evening, I think that would be neat. If no-one has commented yet then I suggest you simply delete it from the CfD page rather than leaving a record of it as withdrawn. (I do that sometimes.) – Fayenatic London 21:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted. This whole fiasco will be our little secret. :-) Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Fayenatic London 23:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artemis Records albums

You wanna get to creating an article on the label then? I had a hard time finding anything that wasn't just a name-drop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Artemis Records. – Fayenatic London 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an account

2602:306:256B:61E9:D1:8E1A:ABA8:EBF3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is an IPv6 address, and is thus an anonymous user; hence, an indefinite block is out of place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live and learn! Thank you; I have unblocked it and left a simple warning instead. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Areas of Crawley

Thanks for setting this up. I have added Worth, West Sussex, although (bizarrely) it is a matter of great local controversy as to whether it is in fact part of Crawley! (Short summary: the village part is.) There is one more article that could be added if it ever gets written: County Oak, Crawley. Regards, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Devasahayam Pillai

Hi, Feyenatic, I am very familiar with the story of Devasahayam Pillai and I have been following the process of his beatification closely. A few days ago, I noticed that my edit was deleted by user Sitush because in his view the sources I cited were "religious" although going back to the days of Devasahayam Pillai himself (1700's). I don't want to get into an editing war at all but at the same time I want to present an objective view on Devasahayam Pillai who has already been designated a "martyr" and a "blessed" by Pope Benedict XVI, after a long process of verification of historical sources. The official procalamtion of "martyrdom" and conferring of the title "blessed" will take place this coming Sunday (Dec. 2, 2012) in Nagercoil, India, where Devasahayam Pillai was buried in 1752. I am a simple user of Wikipedia without any administrative position but I do believe Wiki users are entitled to objective information on any topic, especially on persons and events relating to them from a historical point of view. I thought of bringing this to your attention on your talk page because I saw you had already shown interest in the article on Devasahayam Pillai.--பவுல்-Paul (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been busy lately, but will look into this some more. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video game images at CFD

I've closed the CFD for the video game images as keep. As you'll likely see, I used rollback to remove the CFD tags from the categories; this was purely for time-saving reasons, and I'm telling you this so you don't think I saw your tagging as disruptive in any way. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ameenah Kaplan

I have no particular interest in or knowledge of this person. I just created the page because she seemed vaguely notable. Other editors can improve the page or delete it if majority verdict finds her insufficiently notable. No skin off my nose. Smokey TheCat 05:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like you have made Wikipedia a better place by deleting this page I will not argue with you for a second. I was in some chatroom or something similar, her name came up, I noticed she didn't have a Wiki page so I created one. As I said above I have no attachment, emotional or otherwise, to the subject. I will check out Faye Wong as I am a big fan of scat singing, especially Sarah Vaughan. Smokey TheCat 23:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Maybe scat is not exactly the right word; I just listened to Sarah's "Lullaby of Birdland", oh yes, classic jazz scat. For Faye's Restless, non-lexical vocables in music is a long-winded but more accurate description, e.g. Imagine which sounds like words but is all made-up sounds. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV?

Hi, please see Category talk:Jewish journalists. Do you think I should take this to DRV to avoid a G4 deletion? – Fayenatic London 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have "new information" regarding the topic? If not, then, since DRV should not be XfD2, probably not.

This question of discussion venue has been a quandry before, since category talk pages are all too often generally ignored.

I started a categorisation noticeboard awhile back, but it hasn't been used much yet.

You could also just start a thread at WT:CFD and see what others think.

Venue aside, obviously this is another case where defining "Jewish" will be a discussion itself, even before you get into WP:EGRS questions.

I hope this helps : ) - jc37 09:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have re-deleted Category:Jewish journalists after all.

For the record, in case anybody else follows a link here: This category was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1#Category:Jewish journalists. I re-created it in 2012 because a new parent Category:Journalists by ethnicity (rather than nationality) had been created since that CFD. The intention was to hold the pre-existing Category:Jewish advice columnists and Category:Yishuv journalists. However, other editors might start categorising individual bios, which could be contentious; so instead I moved the sub-cats up to Category:Jewish writers. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image permissions

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Agneljose's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayarathina (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:Works_based_on_The_Parent_Trap_.28film_series.29

Ok, so at first glance, this might be a vote counting question (4 rename vs. 3 merge), but it isn't. (And I don't strongly care about the cat, honestly.) I'm just curious how you came to the merge conclusion. - jc37 08:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "rename" !votes were to different targets, and the "merge" rationales had more policy justification. I'll add "per SMALLCAT" for the record. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have brought it up, I was surprised to see your "rename" vote despite the merge arguments. Why did you not think WP:SMALLCAT applied? – Fayenatic London 18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The precedents for SMALLCAT at CFD (back when we were all seeing repeated examples of CfDs which led to radiant and I and others discussing performers by performance which eventually led to WP:OC) were specifically categories not part of an overall structure. And that is noted at SMALLCAT. It's amazing to me how often people quote it without remembering or knowing about that important exception.

That aside, if there was consensus to rename, but not on what the name should be, that doesn't mean that there is no consensus for a rename. The closer has several options at that point. They could relist, or if there is a relevant guideline, just give that weight, or if there is a consistency in other named categories, to give that weight. In this case, this was even easier, as the only difference was how to disambiguate (the parenthetical). So it was merely a case of following current naming/disambiguation guidelines.

So to come back to why I said what I did, I looked up the guidelines in question, and since there was another film, this was the way it was to be disambiguated per the guidelines.

Anyway, the CfD question aside, I am thinking that splitting "Disney songs" to a separate sub-category would be worthwhile (There are plenty of references for this concept/topic), and would allow a container for those "small cats" in this case. And should help navigation for obvious reasons. - jc37 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting history lesson! I do cite the exception at SMALLCAT myself, but seem to interpret it more narrowly than you do. I didn't see this CFD as a case where there is "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". It is not like the given example of Category:Songs by artist, for in the latter case tiny sub-cats are accepted, but there are no current sub-cats of Category:Songs from films with only two members.

In other cases of works based on works, even though that is a large categorization scheme, we do upmerge small sub-cats such as "Films based on Dune" (see CFD 2012 Sept 24). Ah, that may be a weak example since I closed that CFD myself (as nobody else was doing so), but I think we were all in agreement. CFD Nov 1 re Category:Films about Leonardo da Vinci is another recent CFD closed following OCAT where a sub-categorization scheme exists but was not "accepted" as allowing tiny sub-cats. The Nov 14 CFD did give the counter-example of Category:Titanic (1997 film) where a song and other music pages are categorised directly in the film cat.

So if you are going to rely on the exception to SMALLCAT to split "Disney songs", IMHO it would be worth having a prior CFD to secure "acceptance" in advance for a sub-categorization scheme to include tiny ones. I think I would currently be inclined against it -- although you refer to "obvious reasons", you'd have to explain to me the benefits for navigation!

I would support splitting Category:Disney songs into Category:Songs from Disney films and Category:Songs from Disney television series, but not into sub-cats for every film/TV series. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry, didn't mean it to be an history lesson : )

To try to respond to the above:

"...but there are no current sub-cats of Category:Songs from films with only two members. " - Whether there are other such smallcats is immaterial, the question is whether the "schema" exists, and in this case, it does, as you note. Otherwise, if we defined it as you just did, NO smallcats could exist : )

And I agree that at times we do upmerge smaller categories. Hence why I suggested making a subcat concerning disney films. Songs from films is rather broad, and splitting off a disney related subcat (whatever we name it) would seem a decent split. (Sorry, I apparently wasn't clear on what I meant).

And I like the idea of one for television too, though we may need to be a bit more careful there in defining the inclusion criteria. - jc37 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect (and I hope that goes without saying

), I don't think the existence of any old "schema" is sufficient to count as "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". "Songs by artist" and "People by nationality and occupation" can be sub-categorised all the way to hold single articles; but most schemas do not justify that.

I'm glad we agree on a cat for "songs from Disney films", and relieved that (I think) you don't intend to split it down to sub-cats for individual films if they had few notable original songs. I had misunderstood your intention on that.

Presumably all members of Category:Disney songs come from either Category:Disney films or Category:Television series by Disney? so sub-catting should follow those. You're right, the TV name should more carefully follow the latter parent, to avoid other stuff broadcast on Category:Disney television networks. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think where you and I are disagreeing (or perhaps misunderstanding each other) is that I do consider the Works scheme (works from works, works based on works) to potentially be such a scheme (albeit it's still under construction, as we continue to fold the previous "media" mess, and other such smaller schemes into it). And apparently you don't?

And nod. Sounds good to me. If you'd like to be bold and do that, please do : )

It sounds like splitting Category:Disney songs into 2 subcats: Category Songs from Disney films and Category:Songs from television shows by Disney‎ (Not sure if you've seen that we've been moving from series to shows to deal with the ENGVAR issues.)

And not sure about suggesting Category:Songs from films by Disney. But that's a possibility, too, I suppose. - jc37 03:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	At least one editor in the Wikipedia Education Program identified you specifically as being a helpful editor! Thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Fayenatic london. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have improved a few brand pages and keep them on my watchlist, there are other things that I would rather concentrate on. Thanks for the invitation anyway! – Fayenatic London 19:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012

Kingroyos (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Category:Christian terms

Category:Christian terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Help Please

The User:Nymf makes all undo what I edit in Wikipedia Article. I need help please. He undo all just annoy me. Without reference or without reason.

examples:

for example a new picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Walker

list of Albanian americans delete he withot references and grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Albanian_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arta,_Greece&action=history

from older revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Belushi&oldid=530122564

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Belushi&oldid=530035768

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masiela_Lusha&action=history

it can not go on like this.

Yours truly User:Anthony.al

Thankyou very much for your help. --Anthony.al (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)User:Anthony.al[reply]

Albanianp ? I don't know him. Why you ask me ? --Anthony.al (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)User:Anthony.al[reply]

Okay, I have no more Desire to edit in wikipedia . How I can delete my account ? in wikipedia ?