User talk:BrownHairedGirl

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 25 July 2020 at 13:29 by Buster7 (talk • contribs • logs)

BGHBot error

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

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

Thanks for your revert.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic category adding

Please be more discriminate. Do you need help checking other contributions to ensure that this hasn't happened in another edit? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin this AWB is based on analysis of category and article names. Issues like that will happen only when either the article or category are incorrectly named, and that's the first such case so far.

Do you need help in seeing the naming problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Which is "incorrectly named"? Are you suggesting that the admin who closed this discussion misread consensus? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, "the first such case so far"? So the song People from Ibiza is an example of a person from Spain? The American company Planters is type of gentry farmer? I'm guessing that the answer to my question that you did not give is "yes". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Justin what sort of folly leads you to believe that the primary topic for "People from Ibiza" is a 1984 song? In a search of Gbooks the song gets trivial mention.

Or that a single company is the primary topic over the dicdef of Planters? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Okay, so I'll take that as a "no" and that you are ignoring all of my questions and attempts to fix your errors (e.g. this town is not a fish). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Justin please do try to actually read my reply. It's not that complicated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, "Do you need help checking other contributions to ensure that this hasn't happened in another edit?" I don't see you saying "Yes, I need help as I did this thousands of times without previewing my edits" nor do I see "No, I don't need help, as I am taking responsibility to check my edits". Either answer would be fine but I don't think you gave either one. What is your plan to fix these errors you made? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin: See my reply below. Drop your hostile, fault-finding tone or stay off my talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Please, before you go moving pages, can you answer my question? I am looking thru your edits now and you start doing page moves and semi-automated link changes, that's only going to make it more difficult. It seems like you are refusing to audit your own work and are going ahead. Am I understanding that correctly? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done no "semi-automated link changes". I disambiguated one title, which you reverted because after all your years of editing you you apparently don't understand that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC refers to the topic, not the title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, You're not even paying attention to the posts that you're making on this talk page on a thread about how your editing is sloppy! Whom do you expect to fix errors like this? Yourself? Me? Someone else? No one? I need to know the answer to this question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Justin, if you had the basic courtesy to pay some attention to my replies, this dialogue would serve some purpose. However, you are clearly engaged in a hostile process of fault-finding rather than problem-solving.

I will of course review my edits for the occasional exceptional case in the data set I am working off. But I am not willing to have my day soured by by your aggressive hostility. Wikipedia is a collegial exercise, not a forum for you to vent your grudges.

If you want to change you tone, then I will be happy to discuss this issue with you. But unless you are willing to radically change your approach, the I ask you to not post here again on this topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll add another one: diff. Please be more careful. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Okay, changing tone: Fellow encyclopedia editor, is there anything that I can do to assist you? If so, please do not hesitate to ask. If not, have a pleasant day in your endeavors. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Too late. I have had enough of your unpleasant communication style, and have already reverted a post where you yet again ignored a request for a change of tone. Have a nice day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I count at least four errors (People from Ibiza, Planters, Piers, Peanuts) in these 200 contributions. Each of the errors was reverted by someone other than BrownHairedGirl. Please slow down, and inspect each edit to ensure that it makes sense before saving. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Saris, Thrones, Spatula. All three understandable, but plainly wrong. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I found two more in the previous 400 contributions: Queens, and Proposals. BrownHairedGirl: please slow down and edit more carefully. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

More: Showgirls, Shoplifters, Selene, Seii, Sedilia, Routes, Roulettes. Please come up with a plan to review and fix these categorization edits before performing any more. Perhaps doing a review after every 500 or 1,000 edits would be a good idea. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I note that they are almost all one-word titles, which might help make inspection easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Jonesey95. Many of the cases found so far are of articles which should have been disambiguated, so this exercise is proving valuable in identifying them. I have made a flurry of RM proposals as a result.

Your note about single-word titles is valuable. That will help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Part of the problem indeed is that some articles are at the plural base name that probably shouldn't be but this shouldn't mean that the categories are added without some checking. Some of those like Peanuts, Planters and Queens etc should probably be moved though Peanuts and Queens had RMs last year (by me) and Planters earlier this year so it might be too soon to revisit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @User:Crouch, Swale, thanks for your msg.

First, a little explanation of my methodology. I dd a set of huge list comparisons to compare the many millions of article titles with the ~2 million category titles. Then I excluded redirects and dab pages from both namespaces. That left me with a list of cases where there is a non-dab/non-redir category with exactly the same title as a non-dab/non-redir article.

I used AWB's list-making mode to scan the list where the article is already in that category. Then I did a further set of list comparisons to exclude some cases where the article is categorised by a header template. That work is incomplete, because I don't have a full list of such templates, but a good few thousand were eliminated that way.

That left me with a list of about 7,750 articles which appeared to be missing an eponymous category. I did a lot of sampling, and found very very few false positives outside of year-or-decade articles ("1995 in Foo" etc), I started from the bottom, which leaves the year articles until last (since they sort to the top).

I have done this sort of exercise several times before, and it's trivially easy to use tools such as sed to convert a bare list of titles into a comparison lists such as that at User:BrownHairedGirl/Non-disambiguation categories with eponymous disambiguation page in article space/No redirected categories.

However, I find that using such a list to make a huge number of manual edits is both very slow, and high error rate: the clerical task of adding the category name and placing it at the top of the category list (per MOS:CATORDER) is slow because of the need to load each page individually, and my head starts to fug with that much repetition.

By contrast, I can achieve 100% clerical accuracy by using WP:AWB, with a custom module which adds the category. This also applies WP:GENFIXES, so it does a better clerical job than even a perfectly-executed manual edit.

The downside of AWB is that the process doesn't display any link o the category. Even if I preview the edit, I can't compare the article with the category to spot any mismatches. So I get clerical accuracy without being able to check the appropriateness.

My initial sampling suggested that number of mismatches was too trivially low to be worth worrying about;the rare exceptions would eventually be spotted, and the other 99.9% of correct category additions were all good. However, the checks by others on the 2,228 edits I have done so far indicate a mismatch rate of about 1%, maybe heading towards 1.5%. That's high enough to need a change of approach, so I have now switched to this practice:

• Do a rapid-fire batch of ~50 AWB edits
• load my contribs, and ctrl-click on the category link in each edit summary to open each category page. If the article is clearly the head article, then close the page, otherwise investigate further, and revert if needed.

That may sound odd, but I am 100% satisfied that with the tools available, this edit-first-but-fix-the-exceptions approach is the most accurate path possible.

In all but a handful of the cases so far, there is a clearly-misnamed article or category. So I have done some article moves (e.g. Translations to Translations (play)), a few RMs, and about 15 CFD nominations (a mix of full and speedy). And, although we got off to a very bad start (see above), User:Koavf/(Justin) moved on to do great work identifying errors in my AWB run and CFDing misnamed categories thrown up by this exercise. Many thanks, Justin.

Hope that helps clarify what I am up to. The outcome of this should be about 6,000 articles placed in their eponymous categories, which will be a big help to navigation ... and I'm sorry that the path relies on post-facto checks, but it's the best method I can devise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Thanks for your thanks and for all the work you do on categories. How kind of you to say. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Justin. We got to a good place eventually. Pax! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You missed another one. Please take care! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Dirk Beetstra. I am checking carefully, but missed that one. Mobsters is another case of an article which should be disambiguated: see Talk:Mobsters#Requested_move_30_June_2020. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Vermont (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173 Online events: New: July Julies / Disability / Women from Where? ... and starting for an extended period: BLM/Anti-discrimination Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

St. Bonaventure Bonnies football

It's not clear what exactly is going on here, but this discussion dissuaded me from my assumption of good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

---

You recently reverted the move of "St. Bonaventure Bonnies football" to "St. Bonaventure Brown Indians". Your edit summary stated "revert undiscussed move by User:Cbl62 to an anachronistic name. The football team was never known as Bonnies." In fact, your edit history is wrong on both points.

First, the name "Bonnies" is not anachronistic. The football team was commonly known as the "Brown and White" in early years (1903-1931), but became commonly known as the "Bonnies" in its later years (1932-1951). The football team was sometimes referred to as the "Brown Indians" in the later years, but it never became the dominant name. Here is some raw data on use of the nicknames "Bonnies" vs. "Brown Indians" during the years in which St. Bonaventure fielded a football team. The data is drawn from Newspapers.com. The searches were limited to the State of New York in order to avoid erroneous inclusion of schools in other states known as St. Bonaventure. The bold number highlights the most commonly used nickname in a particular year.

data table

Year Bonaventure "Bonnies" Bonaventure "Brown Indians" Bonaventure "Brown and White" 1919 1 0 7 1920 3 1 23 1921 5 0 29 1922 10 1 71 1923 6 0 66 1924 4 1 69 1925 2 0 52 1926 6 3 51 1927 14 18 63 1928 34 8 98 1929 31 8 72 1930 49 6 90 1931 74 8 93 1932 25 4 8 1933 59 52 12 1934 36 37 20 1935 91 45 17 1936 89 32 42 1937 73 43 28 1938 88 21 17 1939 42 3 3 1940 53 11 13 1941 93 23 23 1942 72 48 33 1946 88 25 18 1947 81 26 19 1948 166 39 20 1949 170 40 33 1950 339 96 35 1951 255 41 6 1968 421 119 6 1969 229 60 6 1970 552 49 15

As is evident from the data, "Bonnies" is not the anachronism. To the contrary, "Brown Indians" as applied to the football program is the real "anchronism".

Second, the move was not "undiscussed." To the contrary, it followed a week of discussion at Talk:St. Bonaventure Brown Indians football. Another user had initially objected to the move but agreed after being presented with the usage data. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62, thanks for your message about St. Bonaventure Brown Indians football. A link to the article is a basic starting point for discussion, so that would have been helpful ... and also it would have been better to simply link to the data table, rather than reproduce it here. To make this page more readable, I have collapsed the table.

I am surprised that you opened a discussion about an article title, but chose not to make it a formal WP:RM discussion. That seems very odd: an RM discussion is centrally listed at the RM current discussions page and notified through WP:Article alerts, so it attracts many more eyes ... and the lack of such notification can lead to skewed results.

I also have some doubts about:

1. the way your comments seem to skip over the question of what name the team itself used. That may be inadvertent, but it may be also be related to a desire in some quarters to obfuscate the historical use in American college sports of culturally-appropriating team names. I note that for example you are the sole author of 1947 St. Bonaventure Bonnies football team, but that article is unclear as to what name the team actually used, while implying that "Bonnies" was the official name. I am not suggesting any bad faith on your part, but greater clarity is needed.
2. your search methodology. A crude Google search suggests that the term "Brown Indians" seems unambiguous in a sporting context, and appears to have been used a lot without the "Bonaventure" prefix. Your searches appear to exclude that usage.
3. Most teams have nicknames yet I am not aware of any other case where a nickname is used in place of the official name. WP:NCST recommends using media usage to resolve ambiguous spelling, but it doesn't offer guidance on cases where a nickname is claimed to be more commonly used than the official name. The discussion at WT:NCST sugest that the guideline may not reflect consensus.

So I suggest that you open a formal WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Several thoughts in response.

1) Do you have a reliable, independent source (or sources) to show that "Brown Indians" was the football program's "official" name in the 1930s and 1940s? I have not seen that.

2) There is no "political correctness" motivation or desire on my part to erase the secondary usage of the "Brown Indians". Indeed, I have explicitly noted the alternative usage in each of the six St. Bonaventure season articles that I created. My sole motivation was to ensure compliance with WP:COMMONNAME.

3) Even if "Brown Indians" had some official imprimatur, WP:COMMONNAME states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) . . . "

4) Your critique of the search methodology is misplaced. "Bonnies" and "Brown Indians" are both used in circumstances having no relation to "St. Bonaventure". For illustrative purposes, I tried an untethered search of "brown indians" (here), and 18 of the first 19 results have nothing to do with St. Bonaventure. In order to ensure greater precision, I relied on searches which only retrieved results where "bonaventure" is also used in the article. There was no requirement that "bonaventure" immediately precede "bonnies" or "brown indians", simply that the results also include "bonaventure" somewhere on the page. Without such tethering, we would be comparing apples and oranges with data pulled for "bonnies" and "brown indians" having no connection with St. Bonaventure.

4) My apology for republishing the full chart on your talk page. I had hoped that by placing the data in front of you, it would persuade you that the revert was in error. During the years of the football program's greatest prominence (i.e., 1946-1951), the common usage favored Bonnies over "Brown Indians" by factors of anywhere from 3-to-1 to 6-to-1. I had hoped you would be persuaded by the overwhelming nature of the data.

6) Yes, there are many instances where we use unofficial names in articles on American football teams. See, e.g., 1908 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team et seq. The "Fighting Irish" nickname was bestowed (and not in a way that was intended to show respect or warm approval) by a sports writer covering an opposing team in the mid 1900s. "Fighting Irish" didn't became "official" until decades later, but per COMMONNAME, season articles reflect the "Fighting Irish" nickname as it was embraced by the fan base and press and became the unofficial but common team nickname.

7) I really don't have an inclination at the moment to put this through a formal WP:RM process. Accordingly, and per WP:BRD, I guess we're stuck with the anachronism of "Brown Indians" as the title of this particular article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62, that's your choice, but I do find it odd that you are wiling to post at length about this, but not willing to present your evidence and arguments to launch a consensus-forming discussion which might lead to the outcome you desire. I don't suggest any ill-intent, but it does seem strangely self-defeating.

Anyway, thanks for your time. Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I already did present the evidence and arguments at a consensus-forming discussion on the article's talk page. You chose to unilaterally override that consensus based on the erroneous assertions that (a) the move was "undiscussed" (patently false), and (b) "the football team was never known as Bonnies" (also patently false). I simply don't have the appetite at this time for a second round at this time. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Not so, Cbl62. You presented some of the evidence at an informal discussion where you cherrypicked some notifications to individuals, instead of using the established process which involves proper notification and an independent closer. You then moved the page without even a link to the discussion, which is why I missed it.

You are a very experienced editor, so I find your determination to avoid RM very odd. There's an established structure for making such decisions: why not use it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Not looking for a fight (e.g., "cherrypicked"). You win. The anachronism stays for now. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not looking for a "win". I am looking for an evidence- and policy-based consensus.

And it's very clear from the evidence which yourself ave presented that while that the title "Brown Indians" was used in the period in question. You claim it was not the most commonly-used name. Given that evidence, your decision to repeatedly call that name an "anachronism" is counter-factual ... and the combination of that with your evasion of the established RM process means that with regret, I withdraw my assumption of good faith.

Discussion closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject Ivory Coast

Template:WikiProject Ivory Coast has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Côte d'Ivoire. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Best

I will abide by your request to consider the Bonnies/Brown Indians discussion closed. . . 'nuff said on that . . . I recall positive interactions with you years ago and found you to be one of the most level-headed voices on Wikipedia. Although we disagreed on this most recent issue, I hope our next interactions are agreeable and pleasant. I hope you are well and wish you the very best! 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Care in adding eponymous taxon categories

Hi, when you add eponymous taxon categories, as in this edit, these should replace any parent taxon category that was used previously (in this case Category:Prasophyllinae), rather than being in addition. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, no it shouldn't. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines_for_articles_with_eponymous_categories, which suggests various approaches, and I prefer the inclusive approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of plant articles, at least, is as agreed by WP:PLANTS; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization. There's no good reason to use both a genus and a subfamily as the categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, I don't see anything there about eponymous categories, and I think that in any case navigation is impeded by placing an article only in its eponymous category and removing it from the set category which contains its peers. Those incomplete sets are a pain to navigate.

In any case, what I am doing is semi-automated cleanup job to add a missing category, and you don't dispute that these additions are appropriate. So, instead of coming to my talk page again to complain about me doing cleanup tasks which the WikiProjects themselves have failed to do, how about you:

1. start again as if you were addressing a helpful colleague rather than a miscreant servant, by saying something along the lines of "thanks, BHG, for fixing so many of the issues the project has omitted"
2. Open an RFC to see if there is a consensus to leave these articles only in their eponcat
3. Do the work yourself to implement that outcome, rather than asking me to do it.

Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found that my initial comment assumed that you were "unhelpful"; that wasn't my point at all, merely that as with all automated and semiautomated edits, it's easy to miss issues. (And you have complained before about my making lengthy posts!)

The diagrams at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization clearly indicate that a taxon article is placed in only one taxon category. I've now checked other tree of life categories, and I can't find any that make a practice of placing taxa in both the eponymous category, where it exists, and in the parent category. Consistency across the tree of life is very important in my view. There's no need to have an RfC to see if these articles should be left only in their eponymous category, because this is clearly the practice. It would be necessary to have an RfC to change this practice.

Otherwise, I would say please don't shoot the messenger! I simply wrote up most of the guidance on categorization for WP:PLANTS because when I started editing here I was regularly corrected in the categorizations I made, and wanted to clarify the consensus for myself as well as for other new editors. The current consensus is, overall, definitely not in accordance with my personal preference. Since the taxonomic hierarchy runs, e.g., species → genus → subfamily → ..., there's a strong case for making the categories follow suit, with the article on a genus being placed in the subfamily category if it exists (as well as its own eponymous category if that exists). But, I repeat, this isn't the current consensus or practice. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, it seems that i have not been making myself clear enough.

I am correcting errors in thousands of articles, by adding a missing category using a semi-automated methodology which involves a list created by lengthy analysis, with the edits manually checked for mismatched titles.

That is is as far as I am going. I add the apparently missing category, check that it is the correct category, and move on. No more, no less.

I cannot both do this and add the extra layer of trying to assess whether one or more of the WikiProjects relating to a given article has decided to adopt its own categorisation guidelines, and whether that guideline actually says what Peter thinks it says, and whether that conforms with wider guidelines. That it is a consequential tweak which I will leave to others.

As I stated above, I am doing one edit to each article, which you don't dispute is correct. That's all I am doing.

This discussion brought to mind of a garden I had many years ago, which had no physical boundary between its large lawn and the elderly neighbour's wee patch of grass. When I had the mower out, I ran it over her lawn too. Easy step for me, big help to her. Sometimes she'd just give a friendly wave from the window, and sometimes when I was done she'd come out with a tray and we'd share a cup of tea and a chocolate biscuit and have a catchup chat. Either was fine. I was doing this to help, not for reward.

But your approach sadly seems very different to my neighbour. It's as if that neighbour only ever popped out to moan that I should use a different mower setting for her lawn, and why the f*ck hadn't I also weeded the herbaceous border and trimmed her shrubs?

So, Peter: please adopt a much more collegiate approach, and get rid entirely of your expectation that having done one phase of the work which you and your project have neglected, that I should do the next phase of tweaking to according to your version of the project's preferences. You wasted a lot of my time and energy last week when you chose to manufacture a drama over your entirely-solo personal desire that these topics be excluded from standard category naming practises ... and now you are back again, being unpleasantly demanding of my time.

I have had enough of this. Please have a big rethink about your approach, because you are one step away from a ban from my talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand correctly now: (a) the tool/technique you are using doesn't detect the case of the category added being a subcategory of an existing category (b) you are dealing with so many cases that manual checking is unreasonable. So what's happening is an unavoidable side-effect. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: that's correct as far as it goes, but only part of it. I am just adding a category with a matching name, checking that it is not a false match (of different topics sharing a title). Nothing else. The info that I was doing this as part of a repetitive task is there in the diff to which you linked[3]: AWB.

The other part is that:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization is as clear as mud. I have reviewed it several times, and the diagrams are unhelpful. You assertion that the diagrams clearly indicate that a taxon article is placed in only one taxon category is neither evident from the diagrams nor stated in plain text ... and at no point in diagram or in text is there any mention of the special case of eponymous categories. I have done extensive work on en.wp categories for 14 years, and I can only describe that page as a verbose nuisance. Given that our earlier discussions showed you to be not only very unfamiliar with categorisation practices and guidelines, but actively hostile to long-established basic categorisation guidelines, it's a great pity that you wrote that page without apparently seeking any input from the editors who routinely work on categories. (If you had asked at WT:CATP, you would have found that there are are dozen or so highly-experienced category editors, several of whom would have been happy to help, and the result would have a vastly more informative page at about 1/10th of the length).
2. That page was almost entirely written by you, and the status of that page is somewhere between a personal essay and a project info page. It is not in any way a categorisation guideline.

Then we come back to your style of communication, which is a unfortunate mix of hostile and uninformative.

• Your chose the heading "Care in adding eponymous taxon categories", which is direct accusation of carelessness in my edits. That was not only unfounded, but a very bad tone to start any dialogue.
• Your initial post cited no guideline to support your claim hen you add eponymous taxon categories, as in this edit, these should replace any parent taxon category that was used previously. So apart from being rude, your post just asserted a personal opinion. It later became clear that your comment was based on the page that you had written, but didn't even mention its existence until your second comment.

That was a very aggressive approach. It amount to "hey careless woman! Do it my way". I don't know whether you address people like that in real life, or just on en.wp, or whether it's just how you choose to address women ... but it's a very obnoxious style of communication. I don't expect you to know that I have made about ten times as many categorisation-related edits as you have made edits in total, but I do expect that you have courtesy to start from the assumption that I am a competent editor acting in good faith who may have no reason to be aware that you have chosen to write your own personal categorisation guidance. Your personal website, linked from your userpage, says that you hold some academic position ... and I assume that you treat your students and academic colleagues with a lot more courtesy and respect than you have shown here in either of our two recent encounters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

1969–70 in Czechoslovak ice hockey

The page is empty so it should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) @Xx236: feel free to tag it for speedy deletion, by adding {{db-catempty}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Opps! Sorry, my bad. I see that I created a category page in article space. Duh.

I have tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Japanese municipality categories

Hi, Please stop!!! see your Matsumae one for why, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: see my reply[4] to you at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Category:Makubetsu,_Hokkaido. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, pretty please, stop!!!! With which part of the look for other articles before proceeding line I have proferred do you disagree? How about waiting for the outcome of Matsumae before proceeding? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis, in each case I have checked the articles for links to other pages to populate the categories. I nominate only the categories which are WP:SMALLCATs after that check. If you are aware of other articles which can be added, please add them.

I am nominating these categories as I come across them in the course of my work. But it seems that I in doing so I appear to have caught some of a large collection of under-populated categories which you created, and which you know how to populate further. So there is a very simple solution: instead of complaining to me, just populate the categories. If you add enough articles that they aren't WP:SMALLCATs, then they won't be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But how are you checking? You say you are looking for red links in the municipality articles, but using Tools>What links here is the route to be followed if one wishes to find related pages; perhaps the two should return more similar results, that's another question; WP:SMALLCAT, which you cite, refers to potential; if the pages are there already, the category has potential; if they are not, perhaps it still does, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I only nominate if I don't see the potential. Feel free to prove me wrong by populating the categories ... but please stop posting here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: our discussion above led me to believe that you had been creating categories indiscriminately, without regard to their potential for expansion. So I reviewed the compete list of your category creations, examining categories which has less than 4 articles.

In every case I checked the head article, and if there was a link to a suitable article to add to the category, then I added it. (For transparency, here's my edits in that period, so that you see exactly what I did). I noticed that in a high proportion of cases, the head article was either not in the category, or had been added by me in my recent AWB run to add missing eponymous categories. That is a surprising omission, because the utility of a category is much reduced if it is omitted from the list at the bottom of the head article.

That led to 30 more categories being listed for full discussion at CFD (see the notfications on your talk), and a further two listed at WP:CFDS for speedy renaming.

Note that plenty of these categories have had a long time to be populated. For example, you created Category:Kurayoshi, Tottori back in 2012,[5] but it still has only three articles.

It's clear from our discussions that you have populated categories in the hope that lots of articles will be translated from Japanese Wikipedia to populate the category, but that clearly hasn't been happening on anywhere near the scale you hoped. So the result has been far too many small categories which don't help navigation.

In future, please create only categories which can immediately be populated with existing articles, or which can be reasonably be expected to be populated with a few months.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Television channels based in Mathura has been nominated for deletion

Category:Television channels based in Mathura has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shyamsunder (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Lists of lists

I see you have been tagging some short lists of lists as orphan, and adding them to an eponymous category. Neither are required.

• Per the essay Wikipedia:Lists of lists, these are primarily navigational, a bit like set indexes and disambiguation pages, and often will have no inbound links
• {{list of lists}} will add the article to the eponymous category if it exists.

Aymatth2 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Aymatth2. I had just been checking why my worklist of pages missing an eponcat had so many of these pages on it, and had randomly checked Lists of countries by GDP, done a revision history search and found your edit[6] adding the template. Viewing that edit brought up the notification of your post here. I will now filter out of my worklist any articles which transclude {{list of lists}}.

The tagging is done automatically by AWB's WP:GENFIXES, not by any decision of mine. I take your pint about a lists of lists being navigational ... but how will anyone use them to navigate if they lack incoming links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume they would navigate via the category structure. So List of Egyptian-American writers is in Category:Lists of American writers, which has Lists of American writers as a catmain. There are some inbound links to Lists of American writers, but my guess is they are all or almost all see also links. I will not comment on whether they are useful... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, categories and see-also links are supposed to supplement each other, not be alternatives. So I think it's helpful to encourage more "see also" links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of the usefulness of some of the lists and lists of lists. List of Egyptian-American writers and all the other Lists of American writers are bound to be hopelessly incomplete. But I see no harm in them. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Plenty of en.wp lists are uncompleteable, but still have some non-zero value (with a very wide range of non-zero). Some of them may be too close to zero to be worth keeping, but so as they exist, they should be linked. If hey remain orphaned, they are very unlikely to be spotted, so are very unlikely to be either improved or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added a note in the essay Wikipedia:Lists of lists#Purpose: "However, it is common to have a link to the list-of-lists in the "See also" section of each of the child lists, so readers can compare related lists." Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Aymatth2. That's a god idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi BrownHairedGirl, long time no speak. Thanks for your help with formatting the CfD at [7]. I am rusty, haven't nominated a CfD in a long time. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, IZAK. Group CFDs are horribly fiddly unless you are doing them regularly, as I am.

That cluster of 9 categories for one person is such a balagan in so many different ways that I thought it would be a great pity for the discussion to be impeded by formatting issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am working my way through Category:Jews (hasn't received "maintenance" in decades!) so this one really struck me as very odd. Let's see what else I dig up. Your help is most welcome. IZAK (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good work, @IZAK. Categories like that need a lot of active maintenance, but rarely get it. If you need help with any more group CFDs, please just ask or ping me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, will do. That's great! IZAK (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There comes a time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roulettes#Requested_move_28_June_2020 how many times have editors explained titling policy to Station1? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi, I agree that Station1's sustained defiance of established policy is disruptive and tendentious. Classic WP:IDHT.

If you want to propose some sort of community ban or something, I'd be happy to support it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: to be fair Station1 does usually make strong arguments at RM discussions but very often seems to suggest using titles and hatnote alone to disambiguate when WP:NOPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT say otherwise. A textbook example of Station ignoring PRIMARYREDIRECT is here (see my reply) where Station is saying that because no other article could actually be placed at the plural form the place in NZ (pop 294) is automatically allowed to be there. The guideline is clear that (except possibly in borderline cases) that it is about what topic title refers to, not what could topic could actually be placed there. Yes readers are probably far more likely to search using the singular form even when the plural form is more common but WP:PLURALPT makes it clear that usually either the plural form redirects to the singular titled article (such as Cars) or goes to a DAB (such as Walls) in some rare cases (such as Windows) a plural might go elsewhere but that's not common. Yes in many cases when there is no other articles using a title (such as 3.2.1. and Attack! Attack!) I agree that the terms aren't ambiguous because anyone who actually searches for that specific term could only be looking for that topic but with plural forms of count nouns its quite clear that their always title matches. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@@Crouch, Swale: Station1's stance at Talk:Showgirls#Requested_move_28_June_2020 seems exceptionally perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say a ban on arguing contrary to policy at RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi, if an editor repeatedly argues against policy, I think the appropriate remedy is a complete ban from that topic. But the action will be decided at AN/ANI. If someone draws up a list of instances to show how this is a long-term pattern, we can then draft a report to seek action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would expect that a topic ban from saying something alone the lines of "no other article titled" might work but might be too complicated to apply but I don't know. I hope that in cases like Novae although there are 2 in favour and 2 against (no counting the nom which astually makes 3 in favour) that the closer would see that although the 2 against might have made a weak argument of a possibility of primacy by usage that the 2 support arguments (and the nom's argument) make a far stronger case that if anything the astronomical meaning is primary. But in cases like Nightcaps Station1's argument should be ignored entirely as being explicitly against policy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In theory, @Crouch, Swale, the closer should discard. But RMs have a lot of non-admin closers who seem much less likely to discard contra-policy !votes.

And in any case, even if the closer does their job properly and discards, the participants shouldn't have their time wasted by this sustained policy-defiance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If the Novae RM was closed (as it currently stands) as "no consensus" (although I try to avoid challenging closes due to the possible appearance of forum shopping) I'd discuss with the closer and file a move review if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @In ictu oculi and Crouch, Swale: see below: #Murder in Texas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Article title help

Hi BHG. Hope you're doing well. A quick question - do you know where I can find the guidance on not using a birth year to disambig an article title? For example, using John Smith (English cricketer) and John Smith (Australian cricketer) instead of John Smith (cricketer, born 1066) and John Smith (cricketer, born 1666). I don't believe it was cricket, or indeed sport specific, but I'm sure it exists! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, I'm getting a bit bored of the lockdown and how its fraying tempers all round, including mine ... but otherwise fine. Hope you're okay too.

WP:NCPDAB is the best place to start on this, but some sports topics now seem to have their own dab conventions, so there may be other guideline pages. Basically, the principle is that year of birth can be used when other possibilities are still ambiguous. For example, if we had two Australian cricketers named John Smith, we should dab them as "John Smith (cricketer, born 1066)" and "John Smith (cricketer, born 1666)". (As I'm sure you know, Australian cricket was a global Big Thing in the 1060s. Shergar, Lord Lucan, Michael Servetus, Abiezer Coppe and and King Harold all flew down on Pan Am for at least one cricket season).

Hope that helps a bit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the link I was looking for and could not find! Thank you! All good here, thanks, apart from the Groundhog Day feeling... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

John Carnegie

Hello Brownhairedgirl, I am seancrowe223. As a Dundee United supporter and keen follower of club history, I was wondering if you could tell me whether John Carnegie the politician was the the same John Carnegie who was chairman of Dundee United between the death of William Hogg on November 5,1927 and his own death on February 4,1928. Seancrowe233 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Seancrowe233

I have no idea at all. But you could try googling, or better still do some research in the British Newspaper Archive: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

TOC sorting

I have a question, maybe you have time to look at this. I arrived here since you created {{CatAutoTOC}}.

The situation: Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status has indexed sorting: population is sorted by a code letter first (D=Germany, S=US). Per default, within letter S pages are sorted alphanumerically, so there appears: S - Acetildenafil, ..., S - Yohimbine.

The problem: When such a code letter covers multiple pages (has >200P), it would be useful to have a TOC that gives options like "S (top)", "S A", "S M", "S Z", returning page that starts with "S Acetildenafil" etc. But I cannot get this working.

The question: Can I set such a |from= argument in the category URL? Usually one writes |from=Sa all right, but this doesnt work in here. Default sorting [[Category:SomeCategory|S]] adds {{PAGENAME}} by default. Is there a separator character between "S" and the {PAGENAME}?

Or, should I change the populating template to use explicitly [[Category:SomeCategory|S{{PAGENAME}}]]?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DePiep. Long time no speak. Hope you are keeping well in these weird and difficult times.

Yes, I created {{CatAutoTOC}}. But it is just a wrapper, which decides whether to invoke invokes one of the TOC templates. See Template:CatAutoTOC/doc:

Adds a Table of Contents (TOC) to a category page if the category's size warrants it.

The size thresholds are:

1. <= 100 pages → no TOC
2. 101–1200 pages → {{Category TOC}}
3. > 1200 pages → {{Large category TOC}}

Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status contains 1,867 pages, so it uses {{Large category TOC}}, as you can see from the tracking categories at the bottom of the page: Category:CatAutoTOC generates Large category TOC and Category:Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 1,201–2,000 pages.

If you want to change the output of {{Large category TOC}}, I suggest starting a discussion at Template talk:Large category TOC, or at Module talk:Large category TOC, since the module does all the work.

Sorry I can't be of any direct help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

OK thx.

(actually, I don't want to change any CatTOC. I'm looking for the URL that does the jump to a specific position:

In general: .../index.php?title=Category:Drugs_with_non-standard_legal_status&from=S Y

In my case: .../index.php?title=Category:Drugs_with_non-standard_legal_status&from=SAcetildenafil N

but the from=clause does not work. Will ask elsewhere).

Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

network original programming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see two ways of resolving that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 Ukrainian television series debuts

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 Ukrainian television series debuts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ukrainian drama television series

A tag has been placed on Category:Ukrainian drama television series requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 00:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Banijay/Endemol Shine acquisition

To ask your question about the Banijay/Endemol Shine acquisition, you can view the official news here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwan97 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ridwan97:

1. please sign your posts. See WP:SIGN
2. I requested that info at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_7#Banijay/Endemol_Shine. Please reply in that discusison, so that anyone participating in that discussion can see your reply.

Best wishes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BHGBot edit issue

Hi - could you take a look at this diff please: [8]. Would appear the bot edit is causing an issue with inter-wiki links? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gricehead

That's something done by AWB's WP:GENFIXES, not programmed by me.

I took a look at that diff, and initially thought it was bizarre. But when I looked more closely, I saw that GENFIXES had got it right: this was a GIGO problem.

The old version had the link formatted as

[[fr:Coupe de France de football 1933-1934|Coupe de France]]

.. which is the code for creating an entry in the "other languages" sidebar. See Help:Interlanguage_links#Local_links.

So GENFIXES correctly moved that entry to the bottom of the page.

Per Help:Interlanguage_links#Inline_links_(links_in_the_text_of_the_article), the inline link should be preceded by a colon, like this:

[[:fr:Coupe de France de football 1933-1934|Coupe de France]]

User:NickK kindly fixed[9] the page accordingly.

However, while the syntax used by NickK did generate the intended link, it's not the preferred format at Help:Interlanguage_links#Inline_links_(links_in_the_text_of_the_article). So in this edit[10] I used {{Interlanguage link}}, as follows:

{{interlanguage link|lt=Coupe de France|Coupe de France de football 1933–1934||Coupe de France de football 1933-1934|fr}}

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Every day is a school day for me. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my fix was too quick, I was just surprised to see a misleading French interwiki link. Thanks for pointing out, I fixed the template format — NickK (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @NickK & Gricehead. We're all still learning --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2022 in Colorado

A tag has been placed on Category:2022 in Colorado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of Belarusian football transfers

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Belarusian football transfers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Need for Help to Review Article Draft

Excuse me, i need your help. Please review my article draft. I hope my article draft can become an article. Thank you Amon18 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:Karangsambung-Karangbolong
• Draft:Tourism in Kebumen

Hi Amon18

Thanks for your work. I reviewed the first one, Draft:Karangsambung-Karangbolong ... and I am a sorry to say that it was a quick fail. The problem is that it lacks independent sources, which are required to established notability per WP:GNG.

In this case, I think it is very likely that the draft can be fixed, so please don't be discouraged. The draft seem well-written, but it needs sources which aren't involved in the project. News reports are the most likely source to meet that requirement.

I hope that helps.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I have fixed the issue of the draft article. please review it again. Thank you Amon18 (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

CFD question

Hi BHG. Looking at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_2, I noticed that a bunch of categories you nominated for deletion per WP:SMALLCAT now have more articles than at the time of your nomination. If you'd be willing to review those, or if you want me to simply consider your nomination withdrawn for categories with more than n articles and close accordingly, it'd be appreciated. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg, @Mdaniels5757.

Unfortunately, one or two editors populated those categories indiscriminately, stuffing them with articles for which the town is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic: e.g. long-distance highways which serve many towns, and for which each individual town is WP:NONDEF. Same with rivers.

This may be attributable to a lack of familiarity with categorisation guidelines, but it would also be an effective part of an attrition strategy (if that was the intent). Given the responses by the category creator, both at CFD and on this page (see above at #Japanese_municipality_categories), I struggle to AGF about this.

Unfortunately, checking each category in turn will be time-consuming, and given the possibility that this is a WP:GAMING strategy, I have little faith that any issues will be resolved reasonably.

So I won't withdraw the nominations of any categories where I haven't checked the additions. I think that the best way to proceed is for me to check a sample of categories, and draw some conclusions from that. I will try to do that tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that throws a wrench into the works. Thank you. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mdaniels5757: sorry for the delay in responding. I just checked Category:Nishimeya, Aomori, and found that three of the five pages listed there didn't belong in the category. I have left a note about it[11] at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Nishimeya,_Aomori. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Please stop casting aspersions on my edits, BHG. I was not doing anything nefarious or sneaky. I simply went through the jawiki categories and found out which articles in them had English articles, then made sure they were in the categories. I didn't do it for everything, either, so your accusations of WP:GAMING and whatnot are disingenuous and blatantly false. Please stop attacking my character like this. This isn't the first time you've done this. I've done my best to WP:AGF on your part, but these continued attacks on my character are making that very difficult. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: this is en.wp. Please follow en.wp's categorisation policies and guidelines instead of blindly copying from ja.wp.

It will be easier to AGF if you show some signs of upholding en.wp categorisation principles such as WP:CATVER and WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, you are not paying attention to what I've written: I. Did. Not. Copy. Everything. I only added the category to those article where I thought it fit. I'm fine if it's decided that some of the article shouldn't be in the categories. Nothing I did was done in bad faith or trying to sneak around policies or guidelines on enwiki, so stop accusing me of trying to do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already responded to that point at the CFD.[12]. Please stop duplicating the CFD discussion here, and stop attacking me for taking your words at face value.

Please don'

t post in this thread again. Continue at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia categories named after sports events

Hi, for what are all these categories/sub-categories used? Not possible for me to found an intended use. --Florentyna (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Florentyna, they are tracking categories for WP:EPONCATs. They have some maintenance uses for categorisations wonks like me.

If you are not a category wonk, don't worry about them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathstalker films

Hi, there seems to have happened something wrong with the edits to the Deathstalker articles, instead of adding Category:Deathstalker (film series) the category Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories was added for some reason. Just thought you should know in case there is some issue with your Twinkle or similar.★Trekker (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @★Trekker.

It seems that in this series of edits using WP:CATALOT I clicked the wrong target. Thanks to you for fixing several of them; I fixed[13] the last one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers.★Trekker (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Murder in Texas

Unfortunately the RM was closed before I had a chance to respond. I'm happy to discuss differences of opinion about article titling policy with you or anyone, but regarding this edit, please see WP:NPA and consider deleting your final 2 sentences. I think they are below your usual standards. Station1 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Station1, I stand by my comment. You consistently and persistently ignore the fact that WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT says

The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary

I am not alone in regarding this as wilful disruption by you. Please stop it.

Also, please read WP:NPA. What I wrote is not a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's disappointing. Station1 (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Station1: I guess it probably is disappointing for you. The best way for you to avoid such disappointment is to follow the guideline, and stop being disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Station1: see above, #There comes a time. You are piling up the evidence which will eventually be used to seek a topic ban, unless you change your approach radically. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Station1: I appreciate (as noted above) that most of the time you do make strong arguments in RM discussions but I agree with BHG and IIO that you're continued ignoring of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is getting disruptive. Please pay more attention to PRIMARYREDIRECT in the future, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:YYYY in Ireland

A tag has been placed on Category:YYYY in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 21:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

AWB weirdness

Just FYI, AWB did a weird category add here. Le Deluge (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: thanks, good catch. It's actually not an AWB glitch.

I am nearing the end of a list I made I made nearly 3 weeks ago of articles missing their eponcats. It turns out that in the meantime Category:Carousel had been renamed per CFDS nomination[14].

I am doing this adding of eponcats in batches of less than 50, and the checking each one of them for false positives. This was the latest batch, which I did this afternoon -- then got waylaid into offline tasks before I checked that batch. It is number 46 on the list of edits in that batch.

Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Heh, we don't deserve you. ;) Annoying when that happens, but inevitable given how many we do. I guess it comes from my own fear that deep down, AWB is magic and I don't completely trust it not to start doing its own thing behind my back... I don't think I've said thanks for {{Title year range}} etc - very useful. FWIW my policy when a cat series that could use that kind of thing shows up in SWC is to convert all the >=2020 to that form, so that in future I have some idea of which ones to clone. If you're feeling like going down that rabbit hole again, {{title month}} would be handy... Le Deluge (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Le Deluge.

When I come across a series that could use {{Title year range}} etc, I try to do a quick AWB run to fix the whole set. Sadly, there are a lot of such sets.

AWB is a brilliant tool. How much use you can make of it depends mostly on your ability to write good regexes. A huge range of issues can be sorted with regexes, but how far into that range you can go depends on your skill level with regexes. I am not v good, but over the years I have pushed my skills far enough to allow me to use AWB a lot more. For example, I have a std regex which allows me to strip out everything from a category page except the commonscat link (if it exists). So I can easily make a new setup for a categ series using {{navseasoncats}}, {{title year}}, {{DECADE}} etc ... and v quickly run through a whole series with no manual intervention and no loss of any commonscat.

Conceptually, a {{title month}} template is easy to do. I will try to remember to make one.

I guess that you are probably thinking of using it for Category:January 2020 events in FooCountry etc. The good news is that I am about half of the way to creating a single parameterless (or maybe one-parameter) template for that. The draft is at Template:Month year events in countryname category header plus sub-pages. Not working yet, but I'll get back to it when I have finished these eponcats.

I initially thought that the eponcats would be a simple bot job. However, once WP:BHGbot 6 started working, it turned out that there was a range of non-bot spinoff tasks (see WT:CATP, esp WT:CATP#Non-disambiguation_categories_with_eponymous_disambiguation_page_in_article_space; the current task is WT:CATP#Eponymous_categories_which_don't_include_their_eponymous_article). So for the last 6 weeks, that hastaken up most of my time.

I'll get back to templating when that's wound up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As requested ....

@Le Deluge: Template:Title monthname is now working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And now out in the wild! Yes those awful month event cats were on the radar - I even got as far as sketching out a full list of their contents, to see what would be needed for an "all-in-one" template, then life got in the way. But it's also useful for those maintenance categories that don't have a nice template - various POTD ones etc. And how I know that feeling of "simple job" turning out not to be!!! Whilst we're on the subject, I'm about to do a "find a country in a string" template for a football cat thing I'm doing, so {{title country}} would just be a wrapper for that with PAGENAME passed to it, and I could add continents to it easily enough.

As for AWB, I like to think I'm reasonably sophisticated with it - I've done custom modules and some pretty fancy regexes in the past, but it's one of those things I still don't quite trust - perhaps because I've seen how powerful it can be. And for a long while I couldn't get it to work on my main computer, I've just got it working again but updates seem a bit hit and miss, so my thinking behind not worrying too much about templating pre-2020 cats was that it's more work for me and fractionally extra work for the servers for no real benefit, as long as I knew that I could find a template version on a 202x cat.Le Deluge (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So by stealing taking inspiration from {{Title monthname}} and no small amount of bewilderment at coding Lua for the first time, we now have {{find country}} for finding countries in strings, and as a wrapper for it with PAGENAME. I based the lookup on {{Football demonyms}} so the list isn't perfect, I've already added a couple like Czechia but I'm sure there's more. As part of my work towards a template for the monthly cats I created {{country2nationality}} which is based on ISO codes so is pretty comprehensive (apart from a handful of obscure exceptions like French Southern and Antarctic Lands not being internationally recognised so not getting codes). So combining the two on Category:Tour de France classifications and awards as a daft example, one can generate an automatic link to Category:French sports trophies and awards, which is kinda neat. Now to use it for a cute idea I have for my football club categories.... Le Deluge (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And here we are - if you go to something like Category:A.S.D. Villafranca players, remove the parameter and preview, it now has a helpful suggestion to make, which should dramatically speed up making those categories. At the moment it's brute force job, cut everything before the first Category: in the article and then put the remainder through {{find country}}, I'm sure there's a more elegant way via getcontent and the API but haven't got that far. It needs a bit of a tidy up, which I will do anyway as part of making it more general. Le Deluge (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

CFD dispute

In re: this comment, a closure reviews would be better than alluding to fellow editors acting like a self-appointed version of those I do-what-like-and-don't-have-to-justify-myself cops whose videos are all over the internet. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Sabotaging consensus-formation and ignoring WP:NAC and inventing policy is just fine ... but commenting adversely on these antics is out-of-order.

Sigh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Thai-language television stations

A tag has been placed on Category:Thai-language television stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Postage stamps of Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:Postage stamps of Mexico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:WantedCategories Category:Connecticut wildlife management areas

Hello - While working on the potential category above, I see in Category:Wildlife management areas by state several options for creating such a category for Connecticut.

I was hoping you might provide an opinion.

For example, is there a preferred form? in state X, of state X, blah blah in state X, state X blah blah.

Thanky kindly! Gjs238 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) And there's some nice inconsistent capitalisation there too. PamD 07:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gjs238. Long time no speak; hope you are keeping well.

I agree with Pam. Lots of formats, and inconsistent capitalisation. My first thought is to say toss a coin, and choose any one of the existing formats. They are all such a mess that it's going to take a lot of sorting out at a group CFD some day, and in the meantime best not to add to the permutations.

The underlying issue here is that the article Wildlife Management Area has sources supporting only individual examples, but none for the overall concept. There are many different ways of structuring and labelling environmental protection schemes, and in this case the lack of sources for the concept makes me wonder to what extent this is just a case of WP:SHAREDNAME rather than a consistently defined type of environmental protection. I am tempted to AFD the head article as a case of WP:SYN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s in Ukrainian television

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s in Ukrainian television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 20:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

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

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

Useful links:

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

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

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

Many thanks, @TonyBallioni.

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

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

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

Editor of the Week

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

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

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

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

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