User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive19

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

CFD results: Opera Software

Hello

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 18 indicates that you have authorized moving "Category:Opera Software" to "Category:Otello Corporation" with the rationale of "New name for company". The problem is, I can find no evidence that such a thing has happened.

I can also see that the article has also moved to the new name (Otello Corporation), but the only source given to that effect is a meeting that decided to do. There is no indication that the Norwegian government authorized doing that. And the company website indicates that such a name change has not happened yet. (www.operasoftware.com) Last but not least, there were news about name change and ownership change of this company in 2016. It didn't happen. The Norwegian goverment didn't approve.

WP:CRYSTAL is a rule set down by wise person.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Codename Lisa.
• I note that the 21 Dec 2017 news item on the company website is in the name of Otello Corporation, even though the rest of the site has not yet been re-branded. http://www.operasoftware.com/company/investors
• The financial calendar for 2018 features both names. http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do?messageId=441731
• User:Koavf, as nominator, please comment. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. :)

The source that you added seems to be sheding some light on the matter. "Opera ASA" has changed name, but "Opera Software AS" has not. Direct quote:

The name changes does not affect Opera Software AS or the Opera and Opera Mini internet browsers, all of which Otello sold in 2016, Opera Software AS said in a separate statement.

Hence, the official website link at the bottom of Otello Corporation is wrong.

Honestly, it came as a big surprise to me. To this date I didn't know we had such different entities as "Opera Software AS" and "Opera ASA", with their difference being a final "A".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, if you think about, it makes sense. The name change has been done so that the holding company parts with the last remnant of its connection to the Opera browser, which is the title. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the controversy is that you are not convinced that the company has changed its name but I have a reliable source that says that they have. I would suspect that the branding that the company uses may have not changed and colloquially, many may still refer to the company as "Opera" just like how Google, Inc. was re-incoporated as "Alphabet" and now there is a subcompany called "Google" but there is still a higher-up parent company that was renamed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf

Actually, I am now quite convinced; Fayenatic london's source is quite definitive on the matter: From the two companies with almost identical names, the first, "Opera Software AS" has not changed name, while the holding company "Opera ASA", which now has nothing to do with Opera whatsoever, has changed its name to Otello. Unfortunately, the article representation of the subject matter is convoluted, confounded, conflated and confused. (Take your pick. 😏) Please study messages above in full and carefully. I elaborated why.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Er... Guys? I think I have shown enough evidence to support undoing the move. What's the delay? —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not about the category, but I asked to move the article back to its original place per the above.

This does not address yet the "convoluted, confounded, conflated and confused" treatment of the topic matter in the article. Can someone attend to that? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_24#Category:Iconography_of_Jesus

Thanks for holding the line on this, which I missed with holiday disruption! Johnbod (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A CfD close?

Hi Fl and Happy New Year

If you have a moment, please could you take a peek at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 26#Political_people/figures and see if you could close it?

Some of my worklist depends on its outcome, and it'd be helpful to have it settled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

many thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year – you're welcome, of course. Please keep an eye on the outcomes in case the admin listings need more careful formatting. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it through CfD/, and untagged the cats which were left unchanged.

Ah - I had listed those at WP:CFDWR, and Armbrust is once again processing that page.

If you have the energy for a few more closes, WP:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions has a few knotty ones, but also a bunch of easy closes from Nov/Dec 2017 which neither @Marcocapelle nor I can close 'cos we is WP:involved.

Thank you for the link! I had no idea that that page existed. Before WP:CFDAC was automated, I had started a manual version of that at the end of the list of daily logs. I've now added a link to it from CFDW.

There was a huge backlog of unclosed CfDs until a few days ago, when I began blitz and closed ~150 of them. We now have only 34 due for closure, and it's be lovely to at least clear the 6 which have been open for over a month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done and many thanks! – Fayenatic London 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible: topic vs content

Per closing Admin's request, I moved some articles to the approved category. I see that you've reverted some movements. Have I mis-understood the criteria for inclusion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I did some recategorising, but was only aware of reverting you once, and did it in a way to provide an alert for you – intending to be helpful.

As I understand it, any article called "X in the Hebrew Bible" or "X in the Torah" should certainly be in Hebrew Bible topics. Other articles are arguable. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of earlier deleted category

Would you want to check Category:Camino del Cid that was deleted in this discussion? It has been tagged for G4 speedy deletion by User:DexDor a few days ago but I guess it's not going to be processed because the category is not empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's now been deleted and I've emptied it. DexDor ^(talk) 07:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Thanks for contributing to the article List of child abuse cases featuring long-term detention. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I was taking the article in good faith where it says, "He confined her". This is difficult to check now that citation 7 is a dead link.

I accept that the alleged confinement hardly fits the criteria for inclusion in the list, so I have removed it. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply - The references shown at this time do not seem to refer to anything except the Turpin case. Therefore, {{nicg}} should be left in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: My view of list articles is that it is sufficient for the key fact to be cited in the linked article. In this case we were talking about inclusion of the Tochigi patricide case, and I removed it from the list.

You tagged a different case as NICG. I removed that tag, but tagged the tabloid Daily Star citation as unreliable-source. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging Sheffield incest case again. I concur that that case also was not one of imprisonment, and have removed it from the list. – Fayenatic London 03:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha! I've been meaning to watch that. I expect I will indeed like it. – Fayenatic London 09:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Suzanne Olsson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suzanne Olsson 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/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination) 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. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Navigation boxes for categories by date

Moved from User:Fayenatic london/sandbox5

 – a discussion about changes to {{EstcatContinentCentury}} broadened to wider topics and may be worth keeping. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Examples:

• Category:9th-century establishments in Asia
• Category:11th-century establishments in Asia

…

@BrownHairedGirl:

May I ask, was there a discussion that led you to use LinkIfCatExists in templates such as these? I find the blue links hardly visible in contrast to the black non-links. Blue and red links were clearer to see.

Also, now that swathes of small categories are being deleted as unhelpful for navigation, and tables of links can be suppressed where appropriate, is it not all right to keep red links for the ones that are not deprecated/deleted? – Fayenatic London 23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: No discussion before I created {{LinkCatIfExists}}. I was prompted to do it when I discovered that at least one of the cleanup lists was being swamped by these redlinks. The fact that {{LinkCatIfExists}} is now transcluded by 195,000 pages, most of them using it multiple times, gives an idea of the scale of the problem.

When I looked for guidance, I found WP:EXISTING. Admittedly it's talking about redlinked articles rather than categories, but I think the spirit is clear: don't use navboxes to create a forest of redlinks. There is an exception for "navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data", but I don't think we should expect by-year cats to be a full set.

I do agree that we have a display problem with the lack of contrast between linked and unlinked entries. However, I don't think that display issues should be a factor in deciding whether to create redlinks. Display issues should be resolved by display modifications, not be redlinking.

I did toy with a few possibilities for display tweaking, by styling linked and unlinked entries differently. The simplest would be to italicise or grey out unlinked entries, which would solve the contrast issue ... but I'm unsure how either would fit with any style guides. My guess is that greying would cause less concern.

Another aspect to consider is the underlying color scheme. Like several similar templates, {{EstcatContinentCentury}} uses id="toc", which applies quite a dark background, which I don't think helps. This is actually a navbox rather than a TOC, so the ID is being misused. We really need some sort of "catnavbox" css. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Talking of greying, User:Ianblair23 created an example worth looking at: Template:2nd-millennium establishments in Grenada. This uses grey for dates within the scope of the category (e.g. millennium) but outside the scope of the country. It still includes redlinks within the scope of the country's history. I like it.

However, an alternative would be to remove altogether the dates that are inapplicable, and use grey instead of red or black where categories don't exist. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Template:2nd-millennium establishments in Grenada would indeed better if it omitted the dates before 1640, and then as you suggest greyed the non-existent cats.

I'll work up sandboxed variants of {{LinkCatIfExists}} and {{EstcatContinentCentury}} to test the greying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandboxed grey test

OK, here it is.

• User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox20 is {{LinkCatIfExists}} modified to take a parameter unlinkedstyle, whose value should be any valid CSS style, without enclosing quote marks, e.g unlinkedstyle=color:yellow or (being silly to illustrate versatility) unlinkedstyle=color:pink; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: overline; font-size:130%
• User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox21 is {{EstcatContinentCentury}} modified to take a parameter unlinkedstyle which it passes through to User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox20/{{LinkCatIfExists}}

---

Here's the silly example

• {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox21|10|11th|10th|12th|2nd|Asia|unlinkedstyle=color:pink; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: overline; font-size:130%}}

---

Here's a more sane example, which I like:

• {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox21|10|11th|10th|12th|2nd|Asia|unlinkedstyle=color:#888}}

---

Play around with difft values of unlinkedstyle, and see what you like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Very nice work. I would just go ahead and implement the grey directly into {{LinkCatIfExists}}.

I see that the latter is now incorporated in others via {{Cat topic in year}}. Incidentally, that looks fine on pages like Category:Conflicts in 2004, but at least one awfully clumsy thing has been built with it: Template:Armed conflicts by year.

I agree that the dark background does not help, but don't understand enough about CSS to know whether to press for a separate catnavbox CSS. Presumably these nav templates could be rebuilt using the existing {{navbox}}, but would that make them more bulky?

Should there be a visual distinction between templates that mainly provide navigation within a category, e.g. century and millennium templates (acting as a TOC), and those that mainly provide navigation to sibling categories, e.g. year and decade templates (acting as a navbox)? On the other hand, century templates are mainly navboxes rather than TOCs where the table of years is suppressed... I'm just thinking aloud here.

Also, I just stumbled across Template:Category see also if exists. Brilliant – I propose to put it into all establishment templates, to link to the corresponding disestablishment categories. May I suggest renaming it as Template:See also category if exists ? – Fayenatic London 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Fayenatic london

Glad you like the grey. I have just been looking at the usage of {{LinkCatIfExists}}, and I can't say for certain whether all usages would benefit from greying. Most will, but I'm not sure it's 100%. So I suggest it's best to create a new {{LinkCatIfExists2}} with the greying built in, and deploy it. Then when all the templates have purged, we can see if there are any remaining use cases which shouldn't be greyed; if not, merge. Is that OK?

Glad you find {{Category see also if exists}} useful. Using it for cross-links between establishment and disestablishment categories sounds like a great use for it.

Since {{Category see also if exists}} is a variant of {{Category see also}}, I thought that naming it by adding "if exists" on the end was the clearest way of indicating that they are siblings. I can see a case for your suggested rename, to put "category if exists" together as one phrase, but I'm not sure that is enough gain to offset the divergence from {{Category see also}}. So I think best left as is unless {{Category see also}} is renamed in parallel. Maybe I am too close to it, so if you want to pursue the idea I suggest a WP:RM.

On wider styling of category navigation, I think they need to be visual distinguished from the TOC styling of in-page navigation. I'm less sure about the merits of visually distinguishing between different types inter-category navigation ... but I think some sort more consistent approach would help.

I don't think that {{navbox}} is a good starting point. As you note, it tends to be bulky, and since it was designed for use at the bottom of a page rather than at the top, it has a very difft set of objectives. I did manage to hack it a bit for {{Members of Seanad Éireann category navigation header}} and {{Teachtaí Dála category navigation header}} (see in them in use at Category:Members of the 25th Seanad and Category:Members of the 32nd Dáil). That isn't too bad, but it has some problems.

I think that some day what needs to be done is a systematic analysis of different types of category navigation headers/boxes. When we have some sort of map of the use cases, then we could start defining a set of types, and design each of those. However, it'd be a big job, and I won't have time for it for a while. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please go right ahead with the grey version.

As for the "see also" template, I was thinking that the usual one is {{See also category}}, since that's the name I've been using since I saw it being used in place of the old CatRel. Now I see, that's just another redirect. No need to move, then.

Another nice-to-have would be to fix {{Category pair}} so that it does not display "See also" when neither target exists. I haven't come up with a concise way to do that yet. – Fayenatic London 01:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

{{Category pair}} fixed[1], and /doc updated[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

{{LinkCatIfExists2}} created. All templates which used {{LinkCatIfExists}} now switched over. It will probably take a week or two for pages to be purged, 'cos there are currently 195,280 transclusions of LinkCatIfExists andd only 410 transclusions of LinkCatIfExists2 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: you were right about the delay. There are currently 65k using the new one but still 145k using the old. Between us we appear to have added > 10k transclusions this week! unless I might have accidentally left a mixture of both in one or more templates. – Fayenatic London 23:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: now 118k plays 94k. I checked backlinks to the old template, looking for templates still using it, and there was only one ([3]). IMHO you might as well copy the new one to {{LinkCatIfExists}} now, in which case I'll help to re-edit the chronology templates to use it. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at again, I think there might be some uses for the ungreyed version. Since both exist, and are documented and cross-linked, I'm now inclined to keep both versions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: We're getting there: down to 10k, and still counting down. Some of the remainder use {{milorgestcat}}. There doesn't seem to be a year-cat equivalent to {{EstcatDecadeType}} & {{EstcatCenturyType}}; making one would remove the need for {{milorgestcat}} etc. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I just updated {{Milorgestcat}} and {{Milorgdiscat}}. But most of the stragglers seem to be using {{10years}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And also {{Year in country category}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Hmm... won't all the templates in Category:Establishments-by-year templates need rewriting? Better to make them into one-line templates, passing the "type" parameter to a new {{EstcatType}} which will do the rest? – Fayenatic London 23:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Those were just stopgap tweaks pending a new comprehensive solution. I'll start a new sub-thread below on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth building a maintenance list of pages such as Category:19th-century disestablishments in Austria-Hungary which have a hard-coded partial century table.

Currently, the easiest way to make such pages is to subst the standard template, and edit the results (either on the page or in a sandbox). To help with building and maintaining such pages, would it be worth making a decade-row sub-template of the century templates? – Fayenatic London 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just add optional start and end date params to the by-century templates? Then output the row only if within scope.

That would reduce the need for topic-specific year/decade/century templates, of which we have way too many. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought our suggestions would complement each other. Ten one-liners with dual date tests would be neater than ten ten-line chunks of code.

As for "topic-specific", I assume you are not referring to the country/century templates like the one referenced below. Those are designed to handle changes of name; I can't see an easy way around that. A decade-row sub-template could be used to handle multiple names, but would not be as neat where the name changes mid-decade. – Fayenatic London 23:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you probably mean many of those within Category:Establishments-by-year templates. I agree that many of those look unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. In that case I'll update the specialised change-of-country-name templates. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Doodling new core templates

I reckon the new core templates should use WP:Lua. I did some doodling with it, and even my crude first-play-with-Lua hacks produced nice results. The main advantage is that most cases can be handled without any parameter for year/decade/century/etc, so that e.g in Category:1916 disestablishments in Louisiana, {{DisestcatUSstate|191|6|Louisiana}} could become {{DisestcatUSstate|Louisiana}} ... and with a v little more programming, it could simply be used as {{DisestcatUSstate}}.

My doodle was for a decade category. Just a proof-of-concept exercise, so I did little to polish the output. However, I did get it to the point of needing no parameters. It just needs a decade ("YYY0s" or "YY0s") somewhere in the title: beginning, middle or end. Doesn't handle BC yet.

The v sloppy, beginner Lua code is at Module:Sandbox/BrownHairedGirl/xyz. The wrapper template is at {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox22}}. It needs no parameters, cos it parses the page title, but for sandbox testing it can take a page title as a param.

Examples:

• User:BrownHairedGirl/1760s in Xanadu consists simply of {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox22|1760s in Xanadu}}
• At Category:1870s in Spain I did a test, which I promptly self-reverted. The test just uses {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox22}}: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:1870s_in_Spain&oldid=830189732
• {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox22|1790s in Argentina}} produces:

• {{User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox22|Companies established in the 1630s}} produces:

All just doodles. Needs a proper programmer to do it properly.

I think what we needed to do is to specify what such templates should do, and take a structured look at output formats, where there are currently many variations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

PS I have a lot going on right now, so I can do little on this for the next few weeks, maybe months. But I thought it would better to set out now where my thinking had got to. I have more ideas on the presentation issues an on the structure of the templates, so as time permits, I'll add a few more thoughts on developing this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Nice thinking again!

I just came across {{navseasoncats}} – have you seen it? It takes no parameters and handles years, two-year seasons or decades, and like yours it automatically works out prefix/suffix text in category names. See e.g. Category:1930s toys for a decade example. Like {{10years}} it shows a range centred on the current category rather than a calendar decade or century. It works by {{title year}} which invokes Module:String. However, it has limits, currently designed only for year 1000 onwards.

To avoid redlinks, LinkCatIfExists2 could probably be put into {{navseasoncats/navhyphen}} and {{navseasoncats/navdecade}}. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

DRC disestablisments

Just FYI, {{D R Congo C20 disestab by decade}} is throwing a typo in the categories on Category:1960s disestablishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but I can't see where, it must be buried in the depths somewhere. Le Deluge (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; I had corrected that in the template, and it just needed a null edit to update the page. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: as you were also involved with some Cape Verde categories (e.g. here and Category:1900s in Cape Verde), you may wish to contribute to the current discussion on the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Null edits

Hi Fayenatic

A few months ago, you kindly pointed me to WP:JWB for doing bulk null edits.

I thought I'd return the favour by saying that I finally found out how to do this using WP:AWB.

It's in the last para of the "Null edit" section of WP:Purge#Null_edit, just above the heading "forcerecursivelinkupdate":

If you have access to use the AutoWikiBrowser and need to purge a large number of pages (e.g. after changing a transcluded template), one way to do this is to append to the page and submitting it. No changes will be made, but the page will be purged. When doing this, make sure you set the use X newlines option to 0 newlines; otherwise, saving a newline with will cause an edit to be recorded

Jus make sure to

1. go to the AWB "options" tab and turn off everything
2. go to the AWB "skip" tab and turn off everything. (I was initially caught by leaving "only "genfixes" on)

It works brilliantly, and it's waaaaay faster than JWB. Saved me a mountain of time when adding to Template:YearInCountryPortalBox/parse and pufging the existing pages in Category:YearInCountryPortalBox with no existing country portal.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi BHG, thanks for this. I don't currently use AWB at home or work, but this might be useful in future. Meanwhile, I have put in a new feature request for JWB to process null edits in bulk, e.g. 50 at a time rather than having to save each one; no promises on timing, but the suggestion has been favourably received. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Day in the life of listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Day in the life of. Since you had some involvement with the Day in the life of redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. wumbolo ^^^ 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox historic subdivision

Template:Infobox historic subdivision has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox former subdivision. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Timmyshin (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Equivalence CFD

Hi. You closed this CFD as purge and rename. Can you clarify what should happen next (e.g. are you waiting for other users to purge it before renaming it?, can the current categiry page text be removed?). Btw I'm a bit surprised the discussion wasn't closed as delete (with no restriction on creating a more focussed category). DexDor ^(talk) 16:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @DexDor: I had listed it at WP:CFDWM, and have belatedly tagged the category page with {{cfd manual}}. Yes, anyone may help, so feel free to change the page text or its parent categories.

I considered closing as "delete and replace", but chose "purge and rename" as it has the same result with less manual work. If you think it matters, I'm prepared to re-word the close. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@DexDor: Thanks. I purged a lot of the content (linking to the diffs on the talk page for the record), renamed the category, and changed the wording of the close. Feel free to remove further content. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply for your message available on my talk page.

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Paquito590's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lakes of the Republic of Ireland

Hi Fayenatic

if you have a minute or two, please could you see if you can close WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 7#Lakes_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland?

thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

With pleasure –  Done. Would you say the old names are liable to be used again? If not, I'll delete the redirects, as they have no other incoming links apart from a couple of userspace lists belonging to one BHGbot! – Fayenatic London 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: – Fayenatic London 21:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say there is a good chance they will be used. In my searches, I found that there is a v popular book Loughs of Ireland: A Flyfisher's Guide from which derives most of the search hits for "Loughs of", so I think that some anglers will continue to look for "loughs".

And thanks again for closing it. With WP:IECATNAVP moving towards implementation, it is good to have the name of that set decided.

It was handy that you spotted that this one was also listed at WP:CFDS, and that you unlisted it. If you have some time, there are a few more old entries there which could do with being closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ilaiyaraaja soundtracks has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ilaiyaraaja soundtracks, 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. --woodensuperman 12:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: (i) remember to tag the category page. Also, please (ii) merge nominations that will have the same rationale as each other at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3, and (iii) remember to state the rationales. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I have removed the nomination and hadn't quite got round to removing this note! - I was a bit heavy handed when tagging some subcategories! Apologies for the inconvenience! --woodensuperman 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dr David Clarke

I am the editor who updated David Clarke’s Wikipedia entry. (Dave himself is not on Wikipedia.) I left out the bit about the supposed dispute with Nick Pope as David considers it neither fair nor relevant; as it stands it looks like an attempt to attack Pope, which should not be in Wikipedia. So would you be prepared to let it go if I took it out again? Thanks. Skeptic2 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing: I don't know why he is described as a 'lecturer' in the headword, as he has been a journalist for most of his working life and that's what he is noted as. So can we change that? I realize it will need some revising of cross-references, which I hope you can do. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Skeptic2: OK, if you repeat the edits, I won't reinstate the material again, but please record on the talk page, or at least in edit summaries (or both), the reasons for deleting material that is supported by citations. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Have now removed the potentially damaging material. Would you be able to change the title of the entry as suggested above? Skeptic2 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. I wouldn't normally bother updating links, as the redirect from the old name David Clarke (lecturer) does the job, but I did so this time as that name might be ambiguous with David Clarke (professor). – Fayenatic London 16:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Your help much appreciated. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Batman characters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Batman characters, 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. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Close This Category for Discussion

Could you please close the category for discussion Food Network (Canada) series which you can see here. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving categories

Good point, cheers! GiantSnowman 07:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Walking on Cars

Hi

I sorry you edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_on_Cars

I tried to update the single charts for Speeding Cars but couldn't figure out why, the track has charted in all these countries too not just the 4 listed.

https://acharts.co/song/95995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opal3irl (talk • contribs) 12:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Opal3irl: if you had tried to figure out how, you might have found that even harder! I have done it for you now. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

CfD oddity

Hi, I was a bit surprised at this close. True, the only explicit vote was for deletion, but if you read my own comment there, you could come to the conclusion that either the nom's rationale (and the delete vote) were bollocks based on a misunderstanding of the category, or that there's something fundamental that I am misunderstanding about WP:TOPTEN. If it's the latter, then I'd certainly love to hear more. – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Counting the nominator, there were two editors for deletion and one for keeping. I could have relisted the discussion or found no consensus. However, the delete votes were based in Wikipedia policy, which adds weight, whereas the defence used WP:OTHERSTUFF which is weak. As the members of the list change, I was persuaded by the argument that membership of the category is not defining. I have now added this rationale for the close on the CFD page. – Fayenatic London 06:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So I'm not misunderstanding WP:TOPTEN then? Thank your for adding a rationale, but that makes the close even more bizarre as it now appears to be based on the fact that the two delete votes are citing a policy that has no relevance for the matter at hand. Do you think you could re-open the discussion, to give the two participants a chance to read the article and decide if they still believe that policy applies? – Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(TPS) @Uanfala: Why do you think TOPTEN "has no relevance" here? DexDor ^(talk) 11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how WP:TOPTEN is applied in practice, so I'm going along with what is explicitly stated in the guideline: Magazines and books regularly publish lists of the "top 10" (or some other number) in any particular field. Such lists tend to be subjective and may be somewhat arbitrary.. Now, the category in question here is 100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria, and this titles does indeed make it appear as though it's precisely the kind of thing that the guideline is about. However, as described in the article at 100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria, this is nota list of "top 100 tourist sites". This is an institutional selection of historical and natural sites that are nationally recognised for their significance. And the selection is stable: the only major change was after 1989, with the delisting of sites associated with the communist regime. Personally, I find the whole thing a bit cringey, but also this is precisely the thing I would expect there to be a category for. Of course, if TOPTEN turns out to be applied with a much broader scope that stated, or if there are other reasons to delete the category, that's fine by me. But it is not the case that this is a self-evident application of TOPTEN. – Uanfala (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: as you may have noticed, I have done some work on the list at 100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria, bringing it more into line with the official website. The list is headed "As of 2009" and just editing items numbered 1 to 30 so far, I have added and removed several specific entries (added 6a. Pomorie – Museum of Salt, Lake Pomorie; 7. Burgas – Cathedral of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Poda Protected Area; 13. … Konaka Museum; 16a. Mezdra – Kaleto archaeological complex; 19. … Uzana locality, House of Humour and Satire; 26. … Medieval Church of St George museum, regional historical museum; 27. Blagoevgrad – Varosha Quarter, regional historical museum; 30a. Karlukovo – National cave house; removed Belogradchik Fortress). If these additions were indeed not on the list in 2009, then at the detailed level the selection is not as stable as you suggest. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. These are additions to, and modifications of, already listed sites. – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Some are specific attractions at locations already listed, but some are new locations not previously listed in 2009: Pomorie, Burgas, Mezdra, Blagoevgrad. Some of the specific attractions do have articles in Wikipedia, so membership of the category would not be stable. If we use a category, should it include pages for attractions formerly listed that are no longer listed? – in principle I would say yes, but editors may remove such members from the category. If there is no article for a specific attraction, should the town be a member of the category? - this is debatable. Overall I conclude that the list article does the job well, and a category does not. I did not know all this when I closed the CFD, but IMHO the majority view at the CFD came to the right decision. – Fayenatic London 06:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I've finished updating the list now. I tagged 20 numbered locations that were added in the 2010s (i.e. in the current external list, and not previously in the Wikipedia list that was stated to be "as at 2009"). In addition, there were individual attractions that were added during that period, which I did not bother tagging. So, IMHO, it's not a stable enough list to be WP:DEFINING for categorisation. Therefore I do not think it is worth re-opening the CFD.

If you disagree, your next step would be to take it to WP:DRV.

Instead of the category, I suggest that every article for an attraction/location that was ever on the list should be given a "See also" link to the list, or a statement that it is/was on the list. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! I don't think the general article is relevant enough in individual cases to warrant linking to it from the "See also" sections. – Uanfala (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editing

Hey, Fayenatic london. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! – Fayenatic London 20:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Deleting Mitch Leidner article

Hello Fayenatic london, I didn't see an AFD for the article Mitch Leidner but I agree with deletion under the WP:GNG and Sports NG. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Randomeditor1000: Thanks. There's no AfD, I used the simpler method WP:PROD – if no-one objects within 7 days, it goes. The page was previously declined as a draft by user:SwisterTwister on grounds of notability, but it was made live anyway. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)