User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive16

disapointed

that the brutalist term comedy might impinge upon the subtle and nuanced british humour (being an australian with divided cultural allegiances to british and american versions of things funny and not), but can only use 'comedy' for portal and project. oh well, good to see you are cleaning up from the march cfd JarrahTree 08:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Yes, well I'm linking to the Humour portal just in case anyone ever splits it from Comedy. Feel free! – Fayenatic London 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

oh dear, no I do not feel a humour portal is in my scope of easy will do tonight tasks... JarrahTree 09:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, that was fun. As you might hope. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

you have mail JarrahTree 10:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Film categories

Hi. Please stop removing the top-level film by country category, such as in this edit. All films should have the top-level country category, per WP:FILMCAT. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lugnuts: thanks for the note; well done for spotting my error. This is news to me, so if I have broken the conventions agreed by WikiProject Film, please forgive me. However, I find the section WP:FILMCAT#Most specific categories very confusing as to what it is getting at. If it means what you say, then perhaps it means that a film should be in e.g. the (non-diffusing) nationality category Russian films, the (non-diffusing) genre categories Comedy films, Horror films, and the most specific Russian horror comedy films, but not the intermediate categories e.g. Russian comedy films. Please get this clarified. Template:Non-diffusing parent category should then be added to those categories that are non-diffusing. – Fayenatic London 19:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi FL. All the top-level country categories are meant to be non-diffusing. And using the Ukraine as an example, Category:Ukrainian comedy films, is NOT a sub-cat of Category:Ukrainian films, but a sub of Category:Ukrainian films by genre. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Categorization#Articles in parent categories as well as sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 08:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Guest of honour listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guest of honour. Since you had some involvement with the Guest of honour redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paul_012 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For nine months of work on BC births and deaths categorizations. Very impressive, and an amazing job! Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Enterprisey, thanks very much! This time around I did feel I deserved a thank-you from someone. Your award motivated me to clean up even more today, improving the navigation templates, and ensuring that the Wikidata links were all back in place (thankfully, other people had already done most of the latter). Cheers! – Fayenatic London 22:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:YesAsia logo.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YesAsia logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Comic Book Character infobox addition help request

Hey I wanted to make an addition to the comic book character info box template and was wondering if you could help me or point me in the right direction to make it happen? I wanted to add a relatives section to it since real people also have them on their info boxes so why why not comic book characters as well? What do you think? and how can I make it happen? I've been looking for someone who can help me make this a reality and was hoping it was you so what do you say?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have already gone on to make your request at the template talk page, which is what I would have suggested. If nobody responds there within a few days, take it to WT:COMICS, or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot Request for CfD

Hello Fayenatic london, a discussion regarding a new bot task related to WP:CFD is open at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 2. I thought you may have some insight that could help the discussion. If you are interested, please stop by and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillary listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hillary. Since you had some involvement with the Hillary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Neve–selbert 23:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Film speculative fiction closure

You've given me credit for a premature category move and I just want to set the record straight that the move was by Arbnos (see Category:Film speculative fiction for log). Would you mind updating the closure message? Ibadibam (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: Sorry about that; I've corrected the record. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My thanks! Ibadibam (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories Ciney Hamlets and Villages

See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 22.

Made Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney. Wwikix (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Fayenatic london. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hijama Edit

HijamaFacts (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC) How is the only current authorized hijama training course not relevant to the subject of hijama. This training program is the highest authority on this subject. Hope you restore. Thanks

You would have to provide independent citations for these assertions. Following the links, it appears that the practitioner claims to be the first authorised Ijazah (licensed) trainer in the West, but he was trained in Syria and Turkey, so presumably there remain higher authorities on the subject there. – Fayenatic London 22:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have no understanding of the ijaaza system of teaching as it has nothing to do with States only a master teacher under a trust agreement. He is the author of the first English book on Cupping as well and it is still available on Amazon. Traditional Cupping, I recall. This needs to be restored. Do you have an active interest in this and and good understanding, if not, please leave it to those who do. Thank you. HijamaFacts (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference: the above is a complaint about this edit: [1]

@HijamaFacts: Are you able to identify reliable sources to demonstrate that Umar Rabbani offers "the only current authorized hijama training course" in the world? Please understand that Wikipedia is not based on personal knowledge of a subject, but on knowledge that can be verified. If you are here to improve the encyclopaedia, please do it according to those principles, and provide citations. A citation for such a recommendation would have to be written by sources that are independent of the course being advertised.

However, if you are here to use the encyclopaedia as a form of advertising, expect your edits to be removed. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

THEN it should have been challenged and not removed. Arguing with people who want to win their argument is futile. If you had any respect for this subject you would have left it and gave time for an edit if necessary. Your bias is clear, you are wrong. HijamaFacts (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For telling about Category:Ciney Villages and what should have been done. Thank you for the knowledge! Pyrusca (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Pyrusca! (For the record: this refers to Category talk:Sub-municipalities of Ciney, a CFD and two user talk pages linked from there.) – Fayenatic London 07:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Remote islands

Hi Fayenatic, you are probably right. I am an inclusionist, but am finding that Wikipedia is infested by deletionists who have no appreciation for whimsy, or other defects in their eyes. At some point they will succeed in driving me away. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I started off that way, feeling bad about deletion of stuff that people had worked on in good faith. However (as I wrote somewhere on my user page), after a time I came round to see that removing some stuff makes for a better encyclopedia. I hope you can come to accept that while still wanting to contribute. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 20:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If i may comment, it is quite difficult to decide on the 3 lines between outright delete, the "debatable" zone, and definitely keep zone. I find myself in the debatable zone. Yes, I want wikipedia to be a compendium where anyone can easily find information, (almost like a all-in-one High-quality version of Google and others) but some articles I struggle with including. Yes, its a contradiction but I find it hard to accept. Pyrusca (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's why we have objective guidelines on what to keep, such as WP:Notability and WP:Overcategorization, and places where we can discuss how to apply them such as WP:AfD and WP:CfD. It's all done by consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

	Which category does this barnstar go in?
	^easy sorted one. Pyrusca (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Please see here What is the distinction between these two categories? Why recategorize? If you respond here, please use {{Ping}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: Sorry for not leaving an explanation in the edit summary; if you hadn't come here, you would have to go as far as the talk pages (Category talk:Bibliographies or Category talk:Wikipedia bibliographies) to find the explanation. I was splitting the parent category to a new sub-cat, to implement an old CFD consensus which had been languishing for months at WP:CFDWM. The CFD nomination was incomplete, but I expect that it will be followed by nominating Category:Published bibliographies for upmerging to Bibliographies, following the new pattern at Glossaries or Timelines, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_22#Wikipedia indexes, glossaries, outlines, timelines, and bibliographies. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also what does |Writer Nationality do to the appearance other than take up space? Pyrusca (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrusca: At least that one is easier to justify. It's a sort key. The old sort key that I found already in place was "Author nationality". As the current category name is Bibliographies by writer nationality, "Writer nationality" makes more sense as a sort key. Given that the parent has few sub-cats, I accept that it doesn't do much, and that just "|A" would suffice, but if there is any sort key then it should reflect the category's current name. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Wwikix

You might want to go to the bottom post on his page. Pyrusca (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well... you suggested it! – Fayenatic London 19:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

well, I should have kepth my mouth shut. Pyrusca (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Province geo stubs

Hi Fayenatic london, Why are you playing with geo-stubs ? Previously you haven't explained your rationale and still you're reverting my edits. Please don't unless you have solid reason to do it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa: I have explained at length on your talk page at User talk:Nedim Ardoğa#Merged stub templates for Marmara region, and in my edit summaries when reverting those template pages. Do you know how to read the history of pages, to see the explanations given for past edits? – Fayenatic London 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've asked you a very naive question. There are geo stubs for whole world, for countries, for regions and for provinces. Do have a rule to omit province stubs ? If so I have no objection. But it so happens that there are still many province stubs in WP. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa: There was a discussion of the categories for several provinces at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_12#Undersized_Turkey_geography_stub_categories, because the categories for these provinces had small numbers of pages. It is general practice to have a separate stub category only if there are more than 60 pages in it. The consensus in that discussion was to merge the stub templates as well as the categories. However, it was only necessary to merge the categories, and the participants may not have carefully considered whether the stub templates should have been kept. I don't think there is any general rule against having separate stub templates for provinces that have only a few stubs, but we won't keep the categories for small numbers. So, you are welcome to do this,[2] provided you follow it with this [3]. Please let me know whether I've explained it clearly this time. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Happiness at work page, your edit caused a URL error (help) and a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

São Paulo (city) category deletions

How many categories for São Paulo did you delete and merge all of the articles into the state of São Paulo? This is the equivalent of deleting New York City and throwing all of the articles into the same category with articles about Oswego and Syracuse. I would like to know if there was a discussion and whether you would feel comfortable reversing this work. Thanks. giso6150 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Giso6150: I deleted the old categories after the speedy renaming nomination here (accepted and processed by user:Timrollpickering three days later, here). The Speedy nomination was a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#Category:São Paulo (city), also nominated by user:Prisencolin. Co-incidentally, that CFD was closed by me, so you have come to the right person. For that original discussion, only the top category and one other was tagged, so I only processed those two at that time, and insisted on the others being tagged so that they would be exposed for discussion for at least a few days.

I believe that my close of the September 14 CFD was justified, so if you wish to challenge it, your next step would be to raise it at WP:DRV.

Please note that, contrary to what you have stated, the categories for the city and state have not been merged. Category:São Paulo (state) is still the unambiguous category for the state.

Interestingly, I found during follow-up work that Commons categories also have a level that is ambiguously named, but they are the other way round, i.e. commons:Category:São Paulo is for the state and commons: Category:São Paulo city is for the city. However, I would be inclined to change Commons rather than English Wikipedia on this point. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Fayenatic london, thank you for clarifying and pointing out the appropriate discussions, etc. I have been very busy in my personal life suddenly and haven't had a chance to respond. I had time just now to identify the remaining São Paulo categories that still use the pattern "São Paulo (city)" that I believe should be changed to match the new standard. Could you help me add these to the workflow...?

• Cemeteries in São Paulo (city)
• Churches in São Paulo (city)
• International schools in São Paulo (city)
• Libraries in São Paulo (city)
• Media in São Paulo (city)
• Monuments and memorials in São Paulo (city)
• Music in São Paulo (city)
• Music venues in São Paulo (city)
• Novels set in São Paulo (city)
• Places of worship in São Paulo (city)
• Roman Catholic churches in São Paulo (city)
• Skyscrapers in São Paulo (city)
• São Paulo (city) in fiction
• Theatres in São Paulo (city)
• Visitor attractions in São Paulo (city)

I know that I could figure this out, but I won't have time to get around to it for a while. Any help would be appreciated! Cheers. giso6150 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I've left a note for Prisencolin as the original nominator, but their user page says "semi retired". @Giso6150: you might yet get round to it before anyone else does. – Fayenatic London 07:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, shit

Just saw your edit at Working. That's what I get for coming back; it wasn't caught during the CfD, and I just copied over the contents. How do I go about fixing this? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I made a suggestion at User talk:Cyde. I like geography, so don't mind doing it myself. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Category Roman Catholic church

Take a look at what's happening here. Seems like deliberate subversion of consensus to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Don't worry about it. The link in the section above (User talk:Cyde) may explain. We're not finished yet on the cleanup. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I think it's done now. Please drop me a line if anything failed (but not about further work needed on sub-cats). – Fayenatic London 18:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Geologic time categories

Moved from User talk:Abyssal

 – OK, let's put both sides of the discussion where you choose to reply, if "Please reply here" doesn't work for you. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Was that a discussion about your manual replacement of categories such as Category:Oxfordian geologic formations with Category:Oxfordian Stage? (e.g. [4])

I see that you made that change as part of an extensive set. However, I cannot see that the change was an improvement, as "Oxfordian geologic formations" is an understandable sub-topic of Oxfordian (stage), but just capitalising it as Oxfordian Stage does not distinguish it from the parent category.

Please reply here. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The Oxfordian Stage is all of the stratigraphic units deposited during the Oxfordian age. As the formal name for the subject, it is a beter choice for categorization than "Oxfordian geologic formations", which isn't even accurate since the category includes geologic groups as well. Abyssal (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abyssal: You are missing the point. What distinguishes the new Category:Oxfordian Stage from the parent, Category:Oxfordian (stage)? (formerly Category:Oxfordian) – Fayenatic London 15:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The parent category is misnamed. It should be Oxfordian age to refer to the unit of time of which the rocks deposited during that age, the Oxfordian Stage, is a subcategory. Abyssal (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abyssal:

1. If that's your opinion, why did you not oppose the renaming? You objected to a few others but let that one go through. Do you now oppose it and wish me to reverse it?
2. Please clarify the distinct scope of the subcategory.
3. Also, where can I read about Oxfordian age? We often decide not to have a separate category if there is no separate lead topic. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose it. You can rename it Oxfordian (age) or Oxfordian Age. The subcategory is for stratigraphic units deposited during a specific interval of geologic time. There is no separate article for the age and stage, that is for the time and the rocks deposited then, but the article would be better off as Oxfordian (age) instead of Oxfordian (stage) since it doesn't focus much on actual geology. A separate subcategory is useful to segregating articles on physical geology from articles on prehistoric life and events. Abyssal (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia

Hello Fayenatic london,
You've make a request at Persian wikipedia for Anti Globalization Category, would you explain me what exactly do you want to do ?
Don't forget to ping me, Regards MohammadtheEditor (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@MohammadtheEditor: Thank you very much for coming to me. A few years ago I asked for help at WP:WikiProject Iran but no-one replied.

There is a proposal in English Wikipedia to merge Category:Anti-globalization to Category:Anti-globalization movement, because we have only one article on the topic, Anti-globalization movement. This looks as if it should go ahead.

Like many other categories in Enclish Wikipedia, these duplicate categories seem to have been copied into Farsi Wikipedia. Each one is linked via the Wikidata link at the side of the English pages. As one of the Farsi categories only has a few members, I was trying to merge it into the other one.

If you look at my contributions in Farsi Wikipedia, you will see that I have done this a few times before. I use the Farsi equivalent of {{category redirect}}, add the parent categories from one category to the other one, and move the members as required.

I hope that is clear. Do you need me to add links here or can you follow it all? – Fayenatic London 20:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I edited some more, and completed the merge from fa:رده:ضد جهانی‌سازی to fa:رده:جنبش‌های ضد جهانی‌سازی. I hope this is acceptable. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Fayenatic london.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Category Game designers

Hi Fayenatic london/Archive16, FYI Category_talk:Game_designers#Category_Inovators_as_parent. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fayenatic london. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Capture of Gommecourt

I've just noticed that you deleted the page. Attack on the Gommecourt Salient the article is here, are there any formalities necessary on the old page? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: No; I took the discussion as permission to delete the page, and did so.

For the record: at the time, I checked whether any pages linked to it, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Capture_of_Gommecourt. If I remember correctly, you had made a duplicate copy of an existing article, and asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_135#Attack_on_the_Gommecourt_Salient_request. At the end of that discussion, you thanked me, so I thought you were content with the outcome.

Do you want to redirect Capture of Gommecourt to Attack on the Gommecourt Salient? If anyone might search for "Capture of Gommecourt", that would be a useful option. You can do that by re-creating the page with one line:

#REDIRECT [[Attack on the Gommecourt Salient]]

– Fayenatic London 08:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No thanks I was just checking, I vaguely remembered something at the time so was being careful in case there was a loose end. "Attack...." is the Nomenclature Committee term so I doubt that anyone will need a redirect. Thanks for the reply. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thanks for the work and good day/night. Have a great Friday. Pyrusca (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Unblock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unblock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unblock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pppery 01:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category :Indian women architects

@Fayenatic london: I see you have deleted Category talk:Indian women architects on 21:48, 16 August 2014 as (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) . I guess this is another instance of a category that was deleted and then successfully recreated, sigh… Just wondering how many times this category has been deleted and recreated. I often see such debris and don’t want to add something to the talkpage for fear of wiping out information about the history of the wiki-page. Is there any way to preserve this information? Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

Hi @Ottawahitech: the CFD was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 23. The rationale accepted at the time no longer holds, so I don't see any need to re-nominate the page (unless as part of a group nomination). I'll undelete the talk page. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Some help needed

Good afternoon, can you perhaps help with emptying Category:User_ht-0 to get it ready for deletion? Presumably the solution is to be found somewhere in the template scripts but I don't see where. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I found an example.[5] and followed that, but it may have been unnecessary. I think the decisive thing that took the template out of the category was deleting the category first and then re-saving the template. In other words, the template code uses category ht-0 if that category exists, otherwise it chooses category ht. – Fayenatic London 13:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for the help in cleaning up the São Paulo (city) categories! giso6150 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, giso6150! I just realised that there's one left, and listed it – for a double change in this case. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Template:Villages Liechtenstein

Hey Fayenatic London,

I noticed that you recently reverted my edits to Template:Villages Liechtenstein: Difference between revisions, in English, with no description. Could you please provide the reason for the edit? Thanks. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you appear to be talking about this edit: [6] That was made by 216.126.81.12 (talk · contribs).

In that edit, you removed links to two articles, and added the names of two villages which have no articles. The edit summary was "Corrected village information" but this did not explain why you were removing the links to the articles.

One of them has since been deleted and the other one has a current deletion discussion, but the articles should not be removed from navigation templates before they are deleted.

As for the ones with no articles, the point of a navigation template is to click from one article to another, so there is no point adding their names unless there is an article. I googled Lawena and added a mention of a visitor attraction there on the page Triesen, but the lack of info about Lawena suggests that there is no reason to create a separate article about it. Ah, I see that you have requested it anyway, here:[7]

I note that Ramires451 (talk · contribs) has (here) claimed some but not all edits of 98.84.229.179, presumably meaning 198.84.229.179 (talk · contribs). And now on this page, 198.84.229.179 is claiming at least one of the edits of 216.126.81.12 (talk · contribs). Please clarify whether Ramires451 uses both those IP accounts. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fayenatic London, thanks for asking to clarify the issue. I have used the account 198.84.229.179, although other people do use it, most of whom I know. Again, sorry for any confusion this has caused, I previously did not have an account, and sometimes I forgot to log in, or didn't bother to do it. For the next while, though, to avoid these problems and confusion, I will log in and use this account, Ramires451. I had previously made a few edits pertaining to this issue, probably less than 10 if I recall correctly, on 198.84.229.179. I just noted that, only so that there wouldn't be any questions or misunderstandings about that, however, I do know someone who also uses 198.84.229.179 and visits and edits pages about Liechtenstein and related topics, and who I work with. I think that the edit you mentioned was at this link which I did not make. Also, someone else has also used Ramires451 before, although I don't anticipate that from happening again, and certainly not in the next few days or so. But to repeat, I am not 216.126.81.12, have never used it, have never heard of it, and have nothing to do with it. However, I suppose that someone who uses the 198.84.229.179 clearly also uses or is somehow related to 216.126.81.12. But at least for the current deletion process regarding Hinterschellenberg, which I suppose might last for a week, I will only use Ramires451, so that hopefully there aren't any more issues about this. And, also, very sorry that I made a mistake there, the IP address was 198.84.229.179, not 98.84.229.179. Thanks for correcting that error, in the comment that you mentioned. Again, thank you for inquiring. I appreciate your dedication to improving Wikipedia. Ramires451 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, @Ramires451: thank you for adding to this discussion. Please ask the person who did leave this edit [8], and who edited Template:Villages Liechtenstein, to reply here. That person appears to be collaborating closely with yourself so I am glad you know who they are.

Please could you both also refer to WP:CHEAT and Help:Diff so that you can learn to live links which work. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Fayenatic London, thanks for replying. I will look into your requests, some other people also use the 198.84.229.179 account, though not through my intention. In the meantime, I have contacted my friend. We don't really collaborate in any way, at least not for hobbies like Wikipedia. However, I am not a professional Wikipedia editor, or have enough time to dedicate to multiple large projects on here at once. Thanks for referring me to those pages, however. I will take a look. Thanks for asking. Ramires451 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes Fayenatic, I occasionally do use that address, I think that most of the time when it's in a different place, it's like that. I didn't notice that the edit was from there, but I rarely use it and I think that a lot of people do use it. Sorry for removing Hinterschellenberg, I thought the page could be deleted and wasn't relevant for the page. I think it's still there right now, so should be no problem. By the way, I think, as you had mentioned, we should maybe create a page for both Lawena and Valuna, as both of them are actual towns in Liechtenstein, and we have pages for Masescha, Silum, Wangerberg, Ebenholz, Gaflei, Schaanwald, etc. I see someone has been editing the Liechtenstein sections as well, although I don't use Wikipedia too often, but I do try to try and help out by fixing issues when possible. You can continue to contact me on my talk page, if needed. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ramires451: thanks for getting your friend to reply. The record is rather confused at the moment between the two of you, but you did admit to leaving your account logged in, so perhaps that explains it. Is it you that has been editing Swing state?

If your friend is going to carry on making edits, please encourage him/her to register. Also, please make sure you log out in future when using shared computers.

As for the Liechtenstein topics, it certainly looks like collaboration, as you (Ramires451) have been taking the lead at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinterschellenberg and asking for a page on Lawena, while your friend removed the link to Hinterschellenberg from Template:Villages Liechtenstein & Municipalities of Liechtenstein and added Lawena.

Please be open about your connections. There are tools which show how closely you interact with others, e.g. Editor Interaction Analyser. If it were to be found that you were attempting to conceal the use of multiple accounts, this would be WP:Sock puppetry, which is regarded as serious abuse of Wikipedia, and can be grounds for being blocked. As you are a pretty new user here, we can overlook early indiscretions, but it's best to be open about anything of that kind. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, sorry that I couldn't get back on here yesterday. Again, I will use my account when signed in in the future, so that we can avoid any confusion that it causes. Especially for this topic, which obviously has continued to arise, this is much more than a trivial matter. Most of it definitely won't be common in the future, but, as I iterate, I will log in and edit from just the profile found here. As I have noted before, I am interested in geography, and for this moment Liechtenstein, and, as you know, I am arguing for the deletion of the Hinterschellenberg page (as well as adding Lawena and others). Clearly, I am of the opinion that it simply doesn't belong among the country's villages, as per sources such as the National Geographic atlas, credible online mapping services, a Google search, and so on. It's also mentioned in a list and a few descriptions on the government's website, though I can't find it now. However, I did email quite a few separate national representatives as well, most of whom gave the same official list. I greatly appreciate your dedication to helping me get acquainted to Wikipedia, and as such, many thanks for your warm welcome. Ramires451 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Blue_collar_and_service_occupations

I merged and redirected instead of deleting it. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Group CfD closures

This is a minor administrative issue about closing multiple CfDs as a single group, as you did with the three discussions of October 27. Please check here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Devasahayam Pillai

I have reverted your change. Pillai was an actual, historical personage. That is not in dispute. Hence, like any historical person, he has a "Biography." What is the reason for your adding, " . . . According to Catholic Tradition," to the section of his biography? Mwidunn (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mwidunn: this is already explained on the article's talk page, Talk:Devasahayam Pillai. No-one is disputing the existence of the man, but his biography is disputed. Wikipedia must present a WP:Neutral point of view. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in Siam by century

Hi. I just emptied Category:Establishments in Siam by century without realising that you had populated it only minutes earlier. Sorry for not letting you know first, but I believe this follows the consensus from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 26#Establishments in Siam top categories. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Paul 012: thanks for the explanation; that's fine by me. I was doing some cleanup after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 21, and was not aware of that previous decision. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Guiness

re the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_27#Guinness_World_Record_setters_categories and "having the record evidenced in that particular publication is not a defining intersection that should be categorised" is there something that could be done more broadly? Such as Category:World_Record_setters and Guinness being only one possibly qualifier for that? I'm not sure what other publications deal with identifying world records though. Part of the reason I specified Guinness would be to avoid conflicts over what sources qualified someone for inclusion in the category.

People like Jyoti Amge or Chandra Bahadur Dangi for example, mention GWR in their opening paragraphs, yet when you look at the categories for these biographies, the closest to identifying the commonality is "People with dwarfism", but no category at all setting apart people who are world record setters in some way.

Do you think if the "Guinness" aspect was dropped that a category just for World record setters would be valid? Ranze (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: I think that in effect what you are trying to do is to have a separate category for former world record holders. We generally discourage splitting categories between current and former, as it would tend to get out of date. Therefore, IMHO, the Category:World record holders hierarchy is sufficient.

The best way to record in Wikipedia "people who are world record setters in some way" is using a list, not a category. A list can have separate sections, or include an unlimited amount of relevant information. See WP:CLN.

If you can accept this then I propose to merge the current level Category:Record setters. Category:Record holders is also unnecessary; both can be merged to Category:World record holders. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with 'holders' is that it implies that the person still presently holds the record. I am not interested in splitting anything. "Setters" is meant to include not just former holders but also present holders too. If 'holders' is already being used in that dual capacity then I would suggest we rename it to reflect that.

I don't really want a separate category for people who presently hold a record because it would demand too much maintenance. We'd have to make sure to remove someone as soon as their record is surpassed by someone else. That's why 'setter' is better because it doesn't require that maintenance, once you set a record you can't lose having set it, even if you no longer 'hold' the record.

We can't necessarily merge anything in Record Holders to World Record Holders. A person could set a record as the strongest bench press in their state without being the strongest bench press in their nation, much less the country, for example.

World records are the only ones which seem notable enough to cover though, anyone who doesn't hold a world record, we should consider if their records are even worth acknowledging in a category. Ranze (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: I think you may be missing my point about current/former. "World record holders" means that they held the record for a period of time, just as "athletes"/"players" means that they competed for a period of time. Therefore, "holders" as used in Wikipedia is no different from "setters"; both of these names cover both current and former record holders.

I agree that it would not be appropriate to categorise national record holders. So, if we only categorise world record holders, we do not need a parent category:Record holders. The aviation record holders categories are only for world records. There is nothing in Category:Record holders which is not for world record holders. Therefore, the separate category is not needed. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but it could be valuable to include an explanation about this on the category in case people start to remove articles from them on the basis of being surpassed. To use an example, Matt Kroc set a world record in 2009 for powerlifting which was surpassed in 2010, and I believe if we had 'set' instead of 'hold' as the root verb that it would discourage people from removing the category. When the option exists for a verb which better reflects the 'did this at any point in time' vs 'doing this now' then using it just seems like it could prevent people who don't understand policy from disrupting the article.

Query about Category:Former world record holders in weightlifting though... why do we have this if "holders" should include present and former? Is this where I should put Kroc? Ranze (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... I had forgotten that these had been discussed before. At CFD 2010 Sept 16, there was a nomination to delete (rather than merge) the "former record holder" categories; that nomination was rejected, although the leading opinion by Cjc13 stated "Possibly there should be just one category for each sport of world record holders, both current and former, but that is a separate issue." In practice only sports record holders were being categorised as "former", so I nominated the "former" category to be renamed/restricted to sports, see CFD 2011 July 8.

It would probably be helpful to have a CFD discussion on upmerging all the "former" categories.

Meanwhile, as long as that category exists, I suggest you use it where it matches the facts. I believe I did so when implementing the recent closure. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions for Sidney orr - esp renaming "orr" to "Orr"

Thanks for your suggestions.

I would be most happy to make that small rename change suggested - capitalizing "orr"!

For a casual user such as myself though, the process is quite obscure, even for so small a change... Would you please describe the appropriate navigation for this small change?

many thanks Sidney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.195 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sidney orr: I can't do it for you; you have to be logged in as the user to make the request. This is a simple case, so please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hi there. Please take a look now whether have I added appropriate information and template for the image or not. I tried my best but I faced little problem.

Regards, SBso1357 SBson1357 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@SBson1357:  Done

Please take the time to read the information that is given, often at the top and bottom of pages. For example, at the top of this page (my user talk page), it asks you to reply on your own page, so that the conversation would all be in one place. Also, when I recommended using Template:Film poster rationale, I did say to use the syntax at the bottom of that page, but you didn't, so we had to fix it afterwards. I know there's a lot to get your head round when you start editing Wikipedia, but if you take it slowly and follow the advice on the page, the system and the info already provided should help you a lot. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha now I understood to reply under one roof. :) Thank you very much for your help. SBson1357 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to disturb you again. Please, can you fix this as well? I have added an image to the Telugu serial "Anveshitha".

Regards, SBson1357 SBson1357 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, this looks fine now. User:Majora fixed the licensing, I just reduced the image resolution. – Fayenatic London 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm going for a holiday. So I won't be active for a week. I have put images to the following articles: 1. Rohit (Telugu actor) 2. Venkat (Telugu actor) 3. 6 Teens 4. Taj Mahal (2010 film) Please can you fix their license issues as well? I'm really sorry for always appointing you for this. SBson1357 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @SBson1357: I've done the film poster files. Non-free images can't be used for articles about people, so those will be deleted.

Please see WP:CHEATSHEET which will teach you how to link to articles.

You are still not using the format specified in the green section at the bottom of the page Template:Film poster rationale. Why not? – Fayenatic London 16:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Fate of CFDS. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)