User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive17

Devsahayam Pillai

Please, explain why you keep adding "according to Catholic tradition" to his Biography. Thank you.Mwidunn (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)mwidunn

@Mwidunn: I explained this to you before (see my reply, now archived at User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive16#Devasahayam_Pillai). I also referred to the article talk page in my edit summary when I reverted your edit. Please see the discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Devasahayam Pillai – especially the sections "POV" (this abbreviation refers to WP:Neutral point of view) and "Unreliable sources", but the rest of the page confirms that sensitivity is needed over this topic.

If you read these links and still don't understand, please explain what in particular you find hard to understand. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC redlinked user categories

As a regular closer of CFD discussions, you've probably seen a lot of user categories been nominated recently, part of them were speedily deleted. I don't know if you've also seen this follow up RFC about the issue? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Waterside populated places

Be aware that User:BrownHairedGirl, after demanding that I have the categories put back, has now ordered the bot to put everything back. I'm in the middle of writing up an ANI thread, and as the use of admin tools to edit-war against community consensus at XFD is worse than the use of admin tools to edit-war against a unilateral admin decision, an arbitration request will soon be filed. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and WP:ANI#BrownHairedGirl and categories for the requests for sanctions on admin rights and on editing rights, respectively. I've listed you as involved in the arbitration case because she's objected to my following your instructions in the CFD close. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications. Sorry I set you off on that course. I'm afraid I was not able to be supportive of your subsequent actions. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Next steps re Waterside populated places

Hi Fl

Sorry that the CFD/S thing exploded so messily. When I lodged my procedural objection, I didn't see most of that coming.

Anyway, AFAICS the ANI discussion (permalink) has run its course, and there seems to be unanimous support[1] for your proposal to open CFD with an option to rename the lot as originally proposed, and another option to revert them all the previous titles.

I'd be happy to help put that CFD together, if you like. Or if you prefer to do it yourself, that's fine too -- but the offer is there. Just lemme know if you'd like help, or like me to do it all.

We also seemed to agree at CFD/S that there should be some sort of discussion on the use of CFD/S as a followup to CFD. My inclination is to do it as an RFC at WT:CFD. How does that sound to you? And would you like to collaborate on drafting it?

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of nominating the parent category and saying "this is an attempt to rename the tree" was that the whole list was too big to tag everything manually, and I don't have any experience with AWB or bot operation. If you have experience with either one of those, you're free to tag them and nominate them. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, both CFD and CFD/S require tagging. No way round that.

If you don't use AWB yourself, you can ask at WP:BOTREQ. And if you're unsure how to do that, ask for help at WT:CFD. If you like, ask me, and I can put together a tagged list in minutes using AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @BrownHairedGirl: Ordinarily I'd expect Nyttend to do the CFD, hence I asked him earlier, thinking that he had (belatedly) tagged the ones listed at WP:CFDS. Apparently I was wrong on that. So yes, please go ahead with the CFD.

As for the discussion on the criteria: yes please to both questions. Should it be at WT:CFD? The C2 speedy criteria were moved from CSD to the CFD page a few months ago by Pppery; I can't immediately find the brief discussion that justified the move, but I can't help wondering whether that should be reverted, because C2 is also used for merging. How about holding the discussion at WT:CSD anyway? – Fayenatic London 23:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft CFD

Hi again @Fayenatic london and Nyttend:

Sorry for the delay, but I have now created a draft of the procedural CFD, at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox4 (permalink).

Please can you both check it out, and tell me if it is OK?

Note that I have made the first option the completion of the Dec 8 CFD. Option B reverts that decision. My intention is that this order retains Nyttend's first mover advantage.

I have reproduced the Dec 8 rationale verbatim. Since this is a procedural nomination, I don't want to alter that even if Nyttend feels like updating his proposal ... simply because any changes would require explanation which would add verbosity about the procedure, of which there is enough already. If Nyttend has more to add, that can be done in the comments section.

If we have reached agreement, I would like to post the CFD shortly after midnight, to get it at the bottom of the daily CFD page. ('s purely a technical concern: the large collapsible list causes some inconvenience if it's not the bottom item.) I will of course do all tagging once the nomination is listed.

Look fwd to hearing from you both. Please ping me in any reply, so that I don't miss it.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Very good. I didn't know about the bottom-of-the-page consideration.

Often when taking a speedy nomination to full CFD, we'd collapse a copy of the discussion from CFDS; if we do so in this case, I'd omit all the procedural points, which leaves only David Eppstein's post and most of Oculi's. Alternatively, we could simply ping those two editors at CFDS when adding a link there to the full CFD. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london:, yes collapsible messes with section links. The page loads, positions itself at the section header, and then when a collapsible section above that header collapses, the section header zooms off the top of the screen. By having the collapsible section at the bottom, there's no jump. Not a big deal, but it's a minor irritation from some, so I'd prefer to avoid it.

I'm a bit wary of editing any discussion before including it, because that can be misinterpreted. So while there is good reason not to burden CFD with the procedural stuff, I'd prefer to post all or nothing. To avoid clutter, I suggest just linking to it, and pinging David Eppstein & Oculi. Is that OK with you and Nyttend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, OK by me. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't care; I'm not participating in this issue any more. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's up. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Populated_waterside_places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, BrownHairedGirl. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft RFC

Hi again FL

Now that the CFD is underway (with a welcome increase in participation), I have made a start on the RFC. The first draft is at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox4 (permalink).

I have tried to explain the technical and policy background so that it makes some sense to those who have the good fortune not' to be CFD anoraks. <grin>

Then I have left a slot for us each to write a brief statement-of-case. Obviously, the pro-speedy statement of case should reflect your views alone, but everything above that is intended to be a neutral explanation which we can both support.

However, I dunno how well I have done on making that either neutral or comprehensible. I am very keen that the intro should be something we are both stand over, so please feel free to edit my sandbox to hack it about, rewrite it, or whatever.

What do you think so far? Is there anything usable there? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Wow, thanks once again. I was thinking of just posting a brief proposed addition to C2C, but this gives the full background for people not already intimately acquainted with CFD. Now that you have prepared it, yes, let's use it. I'll add to it where you have suggested, when I have some good thinking time. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, FL. I'm glad that you find it usable. Are you satisfied that my background intro is neutral?

Take your time on the pro-speedy rationale. No rush.

BTW, it occurred to me that rather than adding another sentence to C2C, any CFD-followup criterion would be better done with a new label. (I think that the next free slot would be C2F). That way, it will be easier to track usage, and it would avoid any one criterion getting too verbose. Whaddaya think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's see whether we end up with something concise enough to add into C2C. If not, then C2F it will be. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again FL

Sorry to be a nuisance, but just wondering if you had a chance to have a go at wording your rationale for the RFC? If it helps, I could do a first draft for you to hack about as you see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been unwell and busy IRL. I've not forgotten... – Fayenatic London 20:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you have been unwell. Hope you make a speedy recovery :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fl. It's good to see you back again after your illness. I hope you are fully-recovered.

Have you had a chance to think a little more about this draft RFC? I would like to make some progress on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. You have been very patient!

IMHO the main reasons for the proposal are already set out in what you have written. I suggest we end it with a draft form of wording to be added into C2 (I'm willing to have a go). If you have additional reasons against the idea, you could add a section to state these concerns at the end. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request declined

Hi Fayenatic london. The Arbitration Committee has declined the BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kevin: Fancy that! Anyway, thank you. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Kevin, and thanks Arbcom. I am relived that we don't all have to waste time on a full case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Biblia Hebraica Quinta

Dear Fayenatic, I forgot this link: Genesis 1. This is the edition of the Leningrad Codex. Very professional explanations about the Hebrew words. Avraham Tal's edition also translate the Hebrew words? Doncsecz^talk 17:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, I just read about it at Biblia Hebraica Quinta; but no, it does not translate the Hebrew into other languages, it is only in Hebrew. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to know. Doncsecz^talk 10:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to upmerge Category:20th-century reformed church buildings

I have moved this proposal from Speedy to Full Discussion ; seeWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_31#20th-century reformed church buildings Hugo999 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Rape of Palestine

Uh, thanks, I guess. I don't have anything to do with that page and haven't ever edited it, so I'm not sure why you're informing me if its issues. Have I missed something? Two Bananas (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for welcoming me into Wikipedia community.Till now I have made more than ten edits on Wikipedia,created a news article on Wikinews and I hope to contribute more to the community with your help and support. Thank you once again. Krishna Kaasyap 07:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Courts in the United Kingdom

Hi FL

Just a quick note that I have closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_22#Courts_in_the_United_Kingdom. (More tgan 3 months after it was first listed!)

In your nomination, you said that you would do some necessary followup-cleanup. Hence this note. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I did what I had in mind. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

CFD help

Hey there Fayenatic, I'm contacting you for help because you seem to have used WP:CFDWR a good bit in the past. Can you take a look at the categories I've added and see if I've formatted them incorrectly? I can't get Cydebot to remove the CFD tags. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: I found the problem. If you copy names of categories and paste them into a page such as that, you are liable to include an invisible control character at the end of the category name. In my experience, this particularly happens when using WP:POPUPS; YMMV. Anyway, that's what happened here. I detected them by editing the page and using the arrow keys on my keyboard to move one character at a time; for one keypress, the cursor does not move, at the end of the category name and before the closing ]].

I removed the invisible control characters from the categories beginning A to D and saved the page. Feel free to continue from there. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm amazed! Thanks for the help! --Cerebellum (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Also, the page is broken. I'll email user:Cyde whose bot used to process it. – Fayenatic London 09:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Looks like this could soon be taken over by another bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArmbrustBot 6. – Fayenatic London 18:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic! Looks like everything got done, and the new bot even adds {{old cfd}}. What a time to be alive. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Five years of adminship, today.

Wishing Fayenatic london a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! LoopZilla (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wishing Fayenatic london a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! – Fayenatic London 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Southwark

Can you give me a bit of space to write the article before you change the structure- Please. ClemRutter (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Sorry for any edit conflicts. OK, I've left it for now. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: AfD

I've posted a suggestion and a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of the Bible. The Transhumanist 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - good one! – Fayenatic London 20:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sports officials

Thanks for closing WP:CFD 2017 January 4#Sports officials/referees/umpires.

Looking at the aftermath, we were left with a lot of redirects from the ambiguous "Cat:Fooian sports officials" to "Cat:Fooian referees and umpires", which I thought was likely to lead to a lot of surprises and puzzlement. So I converted all those redirects to catdab pages, using a new Template:Sports officials category ambiguous.

Hope you think that's ok. Lemme know if you see any problems, or reckon that it is an outright bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's a rather clever device, which I haven't seen used before. I might have waited a while first to see if Aircorn or others recreated any of the old categories as parent categories, but for now that's a neat thing to do with them.

I also thought it was neat that you created additional siblings with a link to the CFD discussion. Even though they weren't listed there, I reckoned that the tagging was sufficient grounds for me to give them the same outcome under C2E. Hope I anticipated your intention correctly there. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

CFDW may be needed for a G4

Category:Songs sampling other songs has been sitting in the CSD category for a couple days now. The creator populated the category, so I thought I should ask someone who is familiar with CFD to take care of it. If you concur with the G4, it may make more sense to put it in WP:CFDW and let Clydebot do the work. Thanks! — Train2104 (t • c) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104:  Done. Thanks for the heads-up. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And another one. Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe actors – Train2104 (t • c) 03:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Passion of Jesus categories

These are now in a complete mess - see User_talk:Marcocapelle#Passion_of_Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: sorry you missed the CfD discussion. I have just implemented a different outcome as explained at the above link. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there

I was wondering if you could please help me on something. On the New York City English page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_English I removed a link that was linked to a random youtube channel. I though this was against the rules to put youtube video links on Wikipedia articles? You can see the edit history for this as it was the most recent reverted thing on the view history page Klaxonfan (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Klaxonfan: the edit summary of the next edit seems to support removal, even though that edit undid your removal. I wonder whether the other editor misread what you had done. WP:ELNO #1 seems to point to removing this link. Go ahead and remove it again; remember to WP:AGF in your edit summary, e.g. "removing link again – previous editor appears to have misread my action". If s/he reverts you again, discuss it on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 12:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised. There is a "Youtube macro" available. The content was a good representation of the article's substance. LoopZilla (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I reverted the edit. I was not in support of the removal. As for my edit summary, I mistyped. It should have said. "Link probably should not be removed. Maybe we should discuss this on the talk page."LakeKayak (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will not object to reinstating the link. I think LoopZilla is referring to using Template:YouTube to make the link; and his comment changes my conclusion about WP:ELNO. – [[User:Fayenatic

london|Fayenatic]] London 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Grammer Errors

Thank you for pointing my mistakes, let me check and fix that. (WikiGopi (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC))

@WikiGopi: Don't worry, about the article I fixed it already... but now look what you've done. You broke my signature in the section above, and you made a spelling error when admitting to a grammar error. Why not concentrate on contributing in your native language Wikipedia? – Fayenatic London 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Synth-pop article

Hello, Sro23 keeps changing the opening of the article to the New wave genre. Its not properly sourced either, I tried to talk to him, but he just ignores what is on his talk page. Here, I need a 2nd opinion on this source. The part that says Synth-pop is a subgenre of New wave music, which is not properly sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synth-pop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwnick2 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bmwnick2: If you think a better source is needed, I suggest you tag the statement with {{Better source}}, rather than removing the citation altogether.

The lead section of the article on New wave music describes synth-pop as a sub-genre of it. I can see there is a section headed "synonym…" but that appears to be debatable. I haven't time to look into the history of that page right now, but I hope this helps. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Subcategories of London boroughs

Thanks for closing this CfD nomination. For some reason Cydebot has missed out a big chunk of the categories to be renamed here. According to the bot's talk page I'm supposed to take this up with you. Any thoughts on how to fix this? Ham II (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I listed these on the bot's sub-page for large categories, WP:CFDWL. Timrollpickering (talk · contribs) spotted that these were not being processed, so he copied some across to the regular page WP:CFDW (thanks, Tim). He also notified the bot owner, see User talk:Cyde. Tim, I or other admins will probably copy more from the "large" page across to the regular page later. The bot is currently busy processing other sets of categories, and we don't want to swamp the page. But thanks for making sure someone was aware. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted category

Hi. I noticed you deleted the category "Jews and Judaism in North Asia" yesterday, and I wanted to take a look at the CfD leading to that. Can you help me locate it. Thanks, -- IsaacSt (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. You'll see a link to the CFD discussion page when you click on the red link Category:Jews and Judaism in North Asia. The section you want is "Category:North Asian people". – Fayenatic London 08:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that. I couldn't find it since it was bundled with another. -- IsaacSt (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

one from some time back

[2] I believe this was a fundamental error that needs correcting, that non native speakers get it - but native don't - any thoughts about resurrecting the issue? JarrahTree 03:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I accept the arguments that were made in the discussion. Apparently that's English usage in North America, as confirmed by the OED. Category:Types of tourist accommodation would be clearer if it only contained generic articles, but there was no consensus to remove Category:Hotels etc. from this category. So, I guess it has to stay. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As Kurt vonnegut used to say, 'so it goes' - thanks for your reply - re the 's' - it was ably replied from drmies - in which case it would be 'so it goes y'all ' JarrahTree 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"ably replied" where? OIC, not in the CFD but at User talk:Drmies. – Fayenatic London 07:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry abut that, not only allusive in the extreme but elusive - at least my metaphors and self referencing are not as weird as some years ago... JarrahTree 08:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Category advice

Hi there, I noticed you at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy and would like some advice, if you can. There's four categories with a similar issue:

Category:A.C. Chievo Verona --> Category:A.C. ChievoVerona

Category:A.C. Chievo Verona seasons --> Category:A.C. ChievoVerona seasons

Category:A.C. Chievo Verona players --> Category:A.C. ChievoVerona players

Category:A.C. Chievo Verona managers --> Category:A.C. ChievoVerona managers

Is there grounds to merge these categories into the categories with out the space per A.C. ChievoVerona? Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Yes, IMHO this case is clear enough for WP:C2D. I've nominated all four at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Cydebot seems to have stopped

Hello.

Cydebot seems to have stopped before moving all clean-up categories.

Do you understand why?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: It might have stopped because it was unable to find/replace the old category on too many of the contents, since the cleanup categories are mainly populated by templates. Or it may have just stopped. I'll email Cyde, he normally restarts it quickly. – Fayenatic London 06:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: Well, that's done now. Well done for making such am extensive nomination. I only found a couple more templates that needed edits.

For the record, you misaligned a couple of nominations, as follows; to err is human! I sorted them out afterwards, in order to preserve the page history.

• Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles with minor POV problems) counter to Category:Monthly clean-up category (Orphaned articles) counter
• Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles with neologism issues) counter to Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with minor POV problems) counter

You can see the extra moves in the page history at Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with minor POV problems) counter and Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with neologism issues) counter.

Also, you mis-typed this one:

• Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles with topics of unclear notability) counter to Category:Monthly clean-up category (topics of unclear notability) counter - omitted "Articles with".

I noted that one at user talk:Cyde, since that happened to be where the bot stopped last night, so it's conceivable that there was a causal connection. ([3] shows where it stopped, but it now shows the corrected name Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with topics of unclear notability) counter because I moved it again manually.)

– Fayenatic London 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to avoid mistakes, but that's almost inevitable, given the amount of edits. Many thanks for you help. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Apology

I mistakenly reverted your edit to a draft article. My apologies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand'mere Eugene (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: No problem! It is common to place categories on draft pages using a colon inside the brackets, in which case you can still click to go to the category (e.g. to check that it is appropriate), but using "nowiki" is acceptable too. – Fayenatic London 12:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining the difference between the colon and nowiki. I knew I had previously used a colon, but I didn't realize how the coding would render the category on the page, making it possible to check appropriateness without actually placing the article into the category. At my age, I sometimes just assume capricious gremlins live in the rendering process. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Merging Mining (military) and Tunnel warfare

Hi Fayenatic, a moment ago I stumbled upon the article Tunnel warfare. Back in 2015 you proposed to merge this article and Mining (military). Just out of curiosity; why have these articles not been merged yet? Maartenschrijft (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Maartenschrijft: I guess it's not because of any objections, but just because merging articles well takes a fair bit of effort. There is a backlog on that task, see Category:Articles to be merged. In the past I did put some time into article merges, but I am more busy with admin than content these days. If you would like to do that one, it would be very welcome. If I did it, I'd probably merge one section at a time from the source page into the target, so that the changes were easily traceable, but that's not essential. You might prefer to work on it in your sandbox, and paste it in as a finished work. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Mike Rother - deletion of "Industrial Technology Institute"

Hi Fayenatic london, as I was adding a new publication I noticed that the reference to one of my former workplaces, the Industrial Technology Institute (ITI), was removed... I assume because a search showed that ITI has one employee. This is interesting because it goes back to before the internet. ITI was a respected manufacturing institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan — located on the grounds of the University of Michigan — with hundreds of employees. I was a researcher in ITI's Center for Social and Economic Systems (CSEI). However, this was in the 1980s and 1990s, before the web, so there is little online information about the institute. We did have and use DARPAnet at ITI, which was pretty cool since it was the first use of the internet, by researchers. ITI closed after the 1990s and today another organization owns the ITI name, which I think is why there is that "one employee" listing.

There is a photo of the ITI building at: http://www.agm-michigan.com/prodpages/custom_insulated.html

Best regards, Mike734 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I added a link to this at the article talk page. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Former Soviet Union

Hey I fully understand you couldn't have closed this discussion any differently, but I'm really astonished that there was opposition against the nomination to begin with, especially after the two earlier discussions. Could/should I have pinged all participants of the previous discussions? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, that could well have been a useful thing to do. IIRC, I checked the talk pages and found that there were plenty of WikiProject banners, and moreover I think I confirmed that the theoretical result of this was actually working, i.e. that the CFD had therefore been listed by bots in relevant projects' Alerts pages. So, the level of participation was disappointing.

Perhaps to goad people into a decisive result next time, you could list "Either: Option A" as nominated, "or: Option B" to re-create (some of?) what was deleted by consensus after the previous discussions.

I have just inserted an additional statement that "this close is no bar to an early re-nomination".

By the way, it is worth checking WikiProject banners when nominating. You may have noticed that I referred to this when re-listing some of your other nominations. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving my subpages

Please note that in general, you should not edit other users' subpages, except under the following conditions:

1. With the user's permission;
2. Adding a comment on a discussion page;
3. Dealing with policy violations;
4. Edits related to deletion procsses (including updating page category names, removing deleted templates or images, adding MfD tags)

This move isn't covered by any of the above, so you shouldn't have done it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, so I hope you can forgive me. I also fixed the two backlinks to it from CFD discussions. A few other users have given me explicit permission to correct typos in discussions (whether bad links or just mis-spellings). Although I had not asked your permission, I hoped that you might retrospectively grant it. I had no intention to annoy you, but only quietly to elevate you. I don't know where you are but as it was before sunset where I am, I didn't expect to be able to contact you quickly, and I was about to close a CFD that linked to the page. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oldest CFD discussions

I've listed them on the admin noticeboard, hopefully that's effective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisting CfD

Could you drop by and relist Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_6#Category:1941_in_the_Moldavian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic again? A clear consensus has yet to form and it'd be nice to get more opinions from other editors. Thanks. Alcherin (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll get there. Perhaps I might be able to close it. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I assessed it as having sufficient consensus already to implement the alternative proposal. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You've accidentally missed one - Category:1990 establishments in Moldova, but thanks for that. Alcherin (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but I hadn't finished at that point! I took a break, and also did related work elsewhere, merging the linked categories in Romanian Wikipedia too, and the records at Wikidata. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New article.

For your consideration Arthur Broome (local man) LoopZilla (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Judaism

I was just going to ask you about this after finding Cydebot removing articles from the category. Why was there a notice saying the category would be deleted, and for that matter I don't understand a bot doing manual editing, so to speak. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which category you are asking me about.

Category:Critics of Judaism has been purged of inappropriate members, manually – not by a bot. When categories require manual follow-up after a CFD discussion, we list them at WP:CFDWM and tag them with {{cfd manual}}. Perhaps the wording of the template should leg clarified; but it does not say "would" be deleted, but "may" – it depends on what the consensus was at the CFD.

Category:American critics of Judaism was reviewed manually by user:Marcocapelle, and as he found only one person properly categorised there, I merged that one critic up to the parent category and set the bot to delete the rest. The record of this at WP:CFDWM is only temporary, so I posted an update to the close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_27#Category:Critics of Judaism.

I hope that is all clear now? – Fayenatic London 12:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that I was an idiot! Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh – apology accepted! I have clarified the template anyway. – Fayenatic London 13:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for your recent message on another topic. I have emptied and salted the re-created categories that you mentioned. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fast work! Doug Weller talk 11:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Animal rights scholars / Animal welfare scholars

Per this revert, would you mind proposing a speedy rename of Category:Animal rights scholars to Category:Animal welfare scholars per WP:C2E? The comment on the revert (implicitly) makes a fair point that "rights" may be too narrow for scholars. I'm also pinging @Tryptofish: on this. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: How about trialling a parent category:Animal welfare scholars, to see how well we can populate each category? I think most of the current members of the scholars category would belong better in that one, whereas Martin Balluch and Tom Beauchamp definitely fit within "animal rights scholars".

There are also people who are notable for setting up animal sanctuaries. I've put a couple into the parent Category:People associated with animal welfare. Are they perhaps Category:Animal welfare activists? – Fayenatic London 19:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'll give it a try. Also, I've created Category:Keepers of animal sanctuaries in order to diffuse Category:People associated with animal welfare, that worked fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, well done, I see that you had spotted and addressed that one before I mentioned it. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. I am the editor who made the revert on Marian Dawkins leading to this thread. I hope you don't my interjecting here. In my opinion, there should be 2 categories, Category:Animal welfare scholars and Category:Animal rights scholars. There are some people, e.g. Tom Regan who fit into one category, and others e.g. Donald Broom, who fit into the other. I feel the distinction should be made for the accuracy of the project. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• @DrChrissy: Thanks, that's a third animal rights scholar; no doubt there are more with Wikipedia articles. I agree that we should keep both these scholar categories. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, and also for all of the work that both of you have been putting into the new categories. DrChrissy was quite correct in that revert, now that I think of it (all of this recategorizing results from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017_April_4) – and I would also agree that the scholarship on animal rights and animal welfare is sufficiently distinct that we need both of those categories. Gary Francione is an example that comes immediately to my mind of a scholar who is in animal rights and who would actually be offended by being characterized as being in animal welfare. So I would say that we should have both categories, but neither category should be the parent category of the other. As for animal welfare activists, I'm disinclined to start that category, because although there are certainly people who actively advocate for that, they tend not to be activists in quite the way that some of the animal rights people are (although I could be persuaded to change my mind). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks for that. I agree that we don't appear to need a category for animal welfare activists, now that we have one for keepers of animal sanctuaries. But on your previous point: why would "animal rights X" not be a sub-cat of "animal welfare X" (where, in this case, X = scholars)? – Fayenatic London 21:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There are animal welfare scholars who oppose animal rights, and animal rights scholars who oppose animal welfare, and it can get quite intense in the arguments, to the extent that I think there could be BLP problems with putting some scholars in a subcategory of the wrong topic. For example, the first sentence at Gary Francione#Animal rights movement shows how he regards welfare with disdain, to the point that he considers it an insult. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks – that wasn't intuitive to me. I've moved it up into Category:People associated with animal welfare, and proposed speedy renaming of that one to Category:People associated with animal welfare and rights (like Category:Animal welfare and rights by country). – Fayenatic London 21:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent approach, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been carefully going through the manual part of this process, and I still have a long way to go. But as I've been going along, I've been noticing that there have been more people than I had expected that I've moved to Category:People associated with animal welfare than I had initially expected. And that got me back to thinking about the earlier discussion about animal welfare activists, or something similar. I'm thinking about creating a subcategory of the "associated with" category, of Category:Animal welfare workers. I think "workers" is more accurate in this case than "activists", and it would certainly be more precise than "associated with". What do other editors in the discussion here think about doing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think one of the problems we are running into here is the way terms are used differently in different cultures. If you were in the UK and read "Mr X is an animal welfare/rights activist", the vast majority of readers would immediately think of people who go on noisy marches, harass workers in the field, place bombs under cars. I also have concerns about the term "workers". This list is potentially endless. Should it include veterinarians, scientists, figure-heads/chiefs of animal welfare organisations, animal breeders, politicians? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm weighing the idea in the context of the category being a subcategory of the already-existing Category:People associated with animal welfare, so I would think that it would have to be more narrow, not less narrow, than the parent category. A lot of those issues are addressed by the requirement, applying to all categories, that it must be a WP:Defining characteristic. So a veterinarian who is notable for having advanced the cause of animal welfare could go in the category, but a veterinarian who is notable for solving a health problem in animals (and thus, contributing to animal welfare) would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done. I've completed the manual work on Category:Animal rights advocates, so the only pages in it now are inappropriate ones, and it's ready to be zapped. Thanks!

As I've been doing it, I've found a large number of pages about people who actually worked on animal welfare, not animal rights, and I've moved them for now to Category:People associated with animal welfare and rights. That's supposed to be primarily a container category, so I think there are now too many pages there. Consequently, I'm going to go ahead and create Category:Animal welfare workers as a subcategory, and move many of those pages there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine has been nominated for discussion

Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Barnstar

		The Category Barnstar
		Please enjoy this well-deserved barnstar after you reduced the backlog on WP:CFD from about 170 open discussions to about 100 open discussions, largely on your own; and on top of that you managed to show the path to consensus in seemingly stale discussions in quite a few occasions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for your endorsement of my proposal on the talk page of the article on the Beatitudes, Vorbee (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vorbee: You're most welcome. Have you come across WP:BOLD? – bold editing is encouraged, so please feel all the more free to take such steps yourself on talk pages. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pundettes

A particularly bad merge there, as it mixes Kellyanne Conway in with Noam Chomsky. Whatever the name of this group, their distinction as both right-wing and female (and most importantly, as recognising themselves as a distinct group) should have been preserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't categorised under Category:Conservatism in the United States. Feel free to sub-divide Category:American political pundits by view, if that would be helpful. However, a category for the intersection of nationality, profession, gender and political view was not defensible. If they are self-categorised in that way, that's what Wikipedia lists are for, and Pundette lists them all (see bot contribs). – Fayenatic London 10:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course narrow intersectional categories are defensible, provided that some external sourcing points to that as being a notable intersection. The idea that "some things mustn't be categorized but they can be lists" is nonsensical. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm only the closer. It wasn't primarily my job to decide whether WP:CLT or WP:OCAT decided the matter. My job was to find the outcome that best matched the consensus of the discussion. You presented your case, but were the sole voice for "keep", and did not persuade the other participants. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hackney = Hackney Central?

Common sense would lead one to assume that Hackney Central is a more restricted area than Hackney. I am sceptical that there can be confidence that everyone previously listed as being from Hackney can accurately be described as being from Hackney Central. (copied from talk page at the category that you seem to have instigated the move of) Kevin McE (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pinging me about this. Although for some reason it was me who tagged the category page, the nomination was actually by user:Timrollpickering, see [4].

The page Category:People from Hackney previously stated that it was for people from Hackney Central, but the name was ambiguous, so it is probable that many biographies were mis-categorised there. After the move, I meant to make it a disambiguation page, and have now done that at last.

Thank you for making some corrections. If you would be willing to review the remaining contents, that would be very welcome. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The borough and Hackney Central are not mutually exclusive: people from Hackney Central is a subset of people from the borough. But everyone who was listed as being from Hackney, with no further specification, has been migrated under the assumption that they are from Hackney Central, which is untenable. Kevin McE (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Even though the "People from Hackney" category page always said it was for people from Hackney Central, and there was also a borough category, editors would not necessarily have read that description. In retrospect we would have done better to list this as a "split" rather than "rename". Well, sorry, it's done now. Do you think they should all be put back into the disambiguation category for manual checking? But if someone would do it, why not just check them where they are now? – Fayenatic London 07:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI

From today I will be on a vacation. While I will have an internet connection, but I can't use AWB during that time... so I can't operate my until then. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Armbrust: thanks for the warning. Hope you have a good time. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured sounds

I notice that Category:Featured sounds and Category:Wikipedia former featured sounds were soft-deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 22. Now, all the former featured sound files are clogging Special:UncategorizedFiles. Since it was a soft delete, can you restore the categories? They could be made hidden if desired. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done that. It may take longer for the file pages to disappear from the Special page. – Fayenatic London 06:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've marked them hidden and historical. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Language orthographies by script

Could you create Category:Languages by script and put Category:Languages written in Latin script, Category:Languages written in Devanagari‎, Category:Languages written in Tibetan script‎ there?

And create Category:Cyrillic-script orthographies parallel to Category:Latin-script orthographies and put it into Category:Language orthographies by script and populate it from Category:Language orthographies with: Taraškievica, Category:Ukrainian orthography, Russian orthography. 85.182.30.253 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

OK –  Done. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Musical families

Thank you for the close but as I read the Cfd, it doesn't seem to me that there's a clear consensus to do anything, with the oppose arguments a bit stronger than those who supported my nomination. I don't know if you'd like to note this your closure comment, but I personally am going to regard it as no consensus and do nothing. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have changed the close accordingly. – Fayenatic London 07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

1.0 Bot was broken by a category merge.

Please see the issue discussed here. Thanks! Brad 21:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)