User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive12

On the deletion of Category:Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves

I saw that "Category:Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves" which I created has been deleted. Here are the questions I have:

1. I'd like to know on what grounds was this decided. Was it by the counting of that so-called "not-vote"? Or was it resolved by reasons?
2. You left a comment that "No objection to making a list if the info is sourced". What does it mean exactly? As most, if not all, of the pages in the deleted category have clearly stated individually that the actors in question have played a fictionalized version of himself or herself in exactly which movie or show or media work, why was the category deleted in the first place?

Wavingdragon (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to see a link from the record of deletion, to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14 where the category was discussed. I assessed the discussion and, although opinions were divided, I concluded that there was sufficient consensus for deletion.

The criteria for WP:Overcategorization do not apply to lists, so you may create a list (article) on this topic if (i) there are citations to show that the topic is notable, and (ii) the grounds for including persons in the list are sufficiently well sourced. I went back after the closure and added a link to the bot's contributions, to make it easy for you or other interested editors to create a list starting with the former category members. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive schools in Camden

Hi, I notice that Category:Comprehensive schools in Camden has been tagged {{db-c1}} again. Do you know if it was emptied out of process again, or is this valid now? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_2#Category:Comprehensive_schools_in_London is still open; so are a few from April, see WP:CFDAC, despite listing them as requests for closure at the admin noticeboard. The editor who tagged the Camden category apparently forgot to revert himself on that one as he did on several others after tagging them. – Fayenatic London 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I only noticed the discussion after tagging a number of these related categories, and it appears I did fail to revert this one. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it was clearly in good faith so I didn't see any need to write to you about it – thanks anyway for your note. – Fayenatic London 19:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What's the situation here? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs) has been tagging these for WP:CSD#C1 again. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought about that this morning. Might as well give up and nominate the rest for merger/deletion. Feel free to delete the empty ones. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Question re: wikidata edits

Re this edit summary, for example. I've been playing around a bit and experimenting with updating the wikidata on categories that have been deleted or renamed, and I think it's all set up so that bots fix the wikidata information relatively quickly after a category is deleted or renamed. I have both changed the wikidata manually after a category name is deleted and also waited a few hours and done nothing, and in the cases where I do nothing, a bot always does what I would have normally done to wikidata. So I don't think we need to do anything with it? Correct me if I am wrong or if there is something I am missing. I'm far from a wikidata expert. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory, as far as I know it still depends which bot gets there first. If it's EmausBot, it will do a rename just fine. However, if it's HooBot, it treats it as a deletion, and removes the interwiki link. I asked Emaus if he would take over the deletion side for categories so that HooBot could leave them alone, but no response yet. I'll follow him up.

Only a minority of categories have interwikis anyway, and I quite often find there are other useful things I can do at Wikidata e.g. merge two Wikidata sets – I don't think the bots would do that. It helps that I'm using Chrome these days, which offers automatic translation.

Oh, and if we move the category page, Wikidata captures the renaming automatically and instantly. It would be good if the CFDW bots start doing that. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On that matter, WT:CFD/W#Category renames --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses; I will keep an eye on the wikidata thing then and keep checking them when they exist. Let me know if you hear back from Emaus or have any updates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, mergers will never be processed by bots. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_6#Category:Christian_holidays was a case in point as the two categories had different sets of interwikis, with only a partial overlap. I merged a couple of the foreign duplicate categories manually, nominated another (in English – hope they accept it!) as I figured out its Cfd page, and manually merged the Wikidata entries. I wouldn't impose any of that on others, but it was an interesting side trip. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Countryside Properties logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Countryside Properties logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Royal Navy equipment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Royal Navy equipment 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/List of Royal Navy equipment 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. Gbawden (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Terms / terminology

Dear Fayenatic, I noticed you closed the CfD and had Category:Christian terms renamed into Category:Christian terminology. I'd like to submit a new delete CfD on the same category because the rename actually allows for a better motivation for deleting. Do you know if it is permitted to submit a new CfD so quickly after the previous one, taking in mind the rename and the consequent change in motivation? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but IMHO it's much too early to challenge a discussion with such a clear outcome, unless you were raising it as part of a group nomination e.g. all the religious terminology categories.

On this topic, be aware of the 22 Dec 2012 discussions, if you weren't already. I've just added a link on that category's talk page. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! By the way, very funny to see that in 2012 a rename was proposed and nothing happened, while later on a delete was proposed and the same rename as discussed in 2012 happened after all. So you're apparently right, consensus can change. But with your reaction at hand, I will refrain from posting another CfD on this, for the time being. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kavala

I'm nearly finished reading the article on Kavala. I made quite a few edits, putting sentences into Standard English, making sentences more concise, choosing more accurate English words, etc. I got to the section on Kavala#Beaches, and I saw that there is a lot of information about the various beaches like the telephone number one can call for more information, the actual buses one can take to reach a beach, etc. I'm wondering whether that is appropriate for a WP article, and whether there maybe is too much information on each beach. Do you want to take a look at it?

Also, in the section Kavala#Monuments and landmarks, in the subsection "The Imaret", I cam across a sentence that doesn't sound quite right, but I don't know how to fix it. It is:

"It operated as a Muslim seminary – internship and "workhouse" for all the poor of the city regardless of religion."

I think the punctuation after "seminary" may not be right (I put the en-dash), and I don't think "internship" is the right word there. I don't know if you can fix this. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I guessed that "internship" meant occupational training, and have put that in, along with creating a redirect at Muslim seminary (matching the one at Islamic seminary).

I suggest taking out most of the info about the beaches, mainly because it's unsourced, excessive non-encyclopedic detail. Maybe move some of it to Wikitravel. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for being patient with me at Categories for discussion. Next time I will follow process - I had a momentary lapse of memory. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm glad you took it in good spirits, Bluerasberry! Hope I wasn't teaching you to suck eggs. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional women engineers

Category:Fictional women engineers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, JDDJS, much appreciated. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hellenismos

Actually, the discussion is going on right now on the portal page for Hellenismos, as there is no portal for "Hellenism (religion)". The issue is not over the content of the article as much as the name of it. Basically, one editor with no other edit history appeared suddenly and started making revisions on every related article, without discussion of the matter on a talk page first. He then accused myself and another editor who agreed with me, of being one in the same. If the issue of content forking is paramount and as an administrator I suppose you have the right to decide so, could you please reverse the redirect the other way, before the bots start changing the multitude of other redirects? Thank you very much for your time.Reigndog (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, is this because I populated Category:Hellenismos portal but left the article at this historical name Hellenism (religion)? Sorry if that seems confusing, but it really doesn't matter in the short term that the name of the portal does not match the article while they are being discussed. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. This is a preexisting issue of an editor changing the name/location of the article to Hellenism (religion) without any discussion or consensus. Then the original portal page of Hellenismos was changed to Hellenism, again without any consensus or discussion. The names of the portal and the page matched before the portal was moved/renamed by this brand new editor. I am very thankful that you populated Category:Hellenismos portal, as I was not sure how to do so myself. (I am not the most skilled editor here, although I have been editing for awhile, most of my edits are slight ones, in particular, adding citations.) My only concern here and now, is your re-diversion of the Hellenismos page and what that will do to other related redirects. Basically, my point is, no consensus was ever reached, in any discussion, to move Hellenismos to Hellenism (religion). My redirect that you reverted was only trying to reflect that. As I said, the relevant discussion is happening right now but is not actually on the Hellenism (religion) page anymore and only began on there by chance.Reigndog (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For the article, the point is that it was moved from its longstanding English name (see WP:EN) Hellenism (religion) to Hellenismos without consensus, and without using the proper method which would have moved the page history. Which redirects are you concerned about? – Fayenatic London 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For (my) reference, the relevant discussions are at Talk:Hellenism_(religion)#Redirect, Talk:Hellenismos and portal talk:Hellenismos - where the portal is being discussed rather than the article. Some participants may assume that both will be covered by the outcome, but the RM does not make any proposal for the article, which will plainly not be moved to "Hellenism" in any case. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, and for the record, the original name of the article by the time it had any substantial content was "Hellenismos". It was then changed to "Hellenic Polytheism" after a consensus discussion. Someone then changed it to "Hellenism (religion)" without any discussion whatsoever, much less after a consensus discussion. I am not sure of the relevance of the length of time the article was named "Hellenism (religion)", considering how that name/move was just the will of one person, without even a given explanation.Reigndog (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about there; can you paste links to show me? The article Hellenism (religion) was always about 30kb in size until 11 June 2014 when you cut and pasted it to Hellenismos, which is a wrong way to do a move, resulting in the subsequent version history being split between two different pages. It has never been at Hellenic polytheism or Hellenic Polytheism. Ah, I see now that it was moved [1] from Hellenic polytheistic reconstructionism in November 2013, having moved from Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism in October. I guess that was what you meant. Anyway, WP:MOVE tells you a short way ({{db-move}}) and a long way (WP:RM) that you could have requested for the old redirect to be deleted so that the article could be moved back. From an admin point of view, I'm not interested in the name as much as keeping the history of the page together – which is chopped up by editors cutting and pasting between pages, instead of moving. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, my apologies. I very much meant "Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism". I am not the most experienced editor here. I had no idea about how to use the "move" function until another editor recently explained it to me. My only intention was to bring the title of the article back to a name that was decided upon after a discussion, instead of a name change resulting from no discussion. Thank you again.Reigndog (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to let me know if something like consensus emerges, and either the article or the portal and its category are ready to move. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CFD section heading

The CFD of Category:Fish of Great Britain is named differently to the category - should it be changed ? DexDor (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, initially I was going to propose a merge to Fish of Europe which would have been clearer. I have changed it now. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

procedural close issue

I noted your procedural close on the 2nd "music geography" CfD. Another parallel-despite-the-original-not-being-closed-yet is underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_18#Category:People_by_ethnic_or_national_origin; the original unclosed one is on the July 9 page.....they're much the same, especially since the 1st was altered to the same title as the newer one....to me both unnecessarily picayune and garbled from the start, and not-called-for or useful in any way; and repeating the same semantic confusions in both (nom and one supporter are clearly not native English speakers who need terms clarified for them, despite having presumed to nominate changes on words and realities they don't understand, but that's beside the point to the two-at-the-same-time issue re a needed procedural close on the 2nd.Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Skookum1. I would have closed it procedurally if I had caught it early. Now, I don't think that would be appropriate. With music geography, the first nom was getting somewhere, so the second one should not have been started. With this one, the first nom was solidly opposed, so it would have been OK for the nominator to withdraw it, close it himself and start a fresh one; he almost did that (didn't actually close it) and I hope has learnt not to do this again. Also, I won't do a procedural close on this one because some editors have given their support for it. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

They're also all clearly second-language speakers of English without a full grasp of the language; it's the same nomination, by the same nominator, of the one you closed as "keep"; the logic there should apply here; that he has a claque that followed him over from the first one should make no difference as to the outcome; his wanting to ask what the difference is clearly shows he's not equipped to have nominated this; it also winds up being a bulk nomination, as by his own assertion 241 "categorys" will need changing, if he gets his way. Are we really going to let people who can't use English properly decide the shape of English Wikipedia. Really??. Ethnic politics is getting deeper by the day, and the doo-doo is everywhere; the agenda behind this I can't pin down, but IMO it's not innocent or based only on lexical hair-picking.Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1: please be quiet. I could provide links to lots of spelling mistakes of your own, including mistypes in links that you provide, so that you weaken your own arguments by including redlinks instead of illustrations. I've closed it, and with what I think is the right outcome, but it's no credit to you. Calm down and stop making personal attacks. (Yes, I do know people make them against you too.) – Fayenatic London 14:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm just getting very tired of stupid ideas being fielded by stupid people with stupid arguments and in this case, with someone who doesn't even know the words he's proposing to use and has to ask. That something like this was dragged out by repeating the same nonsense and "you have to explain to me because I don't understand [the words I'm proposing to use]" isn't funny, it's a CFWT, as are too many RMs and CfDs fielded by stupid people with stupid ideas using stupid arguments without hearing or listening to anyone else except those who feel like agreeing with their stupidity and won't listen to reason or reality or even sources but their own "preferences". In this case ethno-agendas of some kind are afoot and recognizably so; but being told how to use English by someone who doesn't even know how to use it themselves etc...and there's a difference between typos (which yes I make a lot of because I type fast...and do have bad eyes now) and outright spelling mistakes like "categorys".Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

and re second-language speakers of English, I teach English privately for a living and second-language-speaker mistakes and mis-usages are very easily recognizable as such...."a can of worm"...and various structural awkwardnesses that no native speaker would use...not even me with my convoluted syntax (bad me for studying classics and literature and not thinking in terse point-form as is too often demanded of me by those who are offended by more than seven sentences at a time). I wouldn't presume to make such arguments in Spanish or French Wikipedia, though I speak both passably...but mind you other-language wikipedia communities don't play the same extensive games with name-fiddling that's way too common and ongoing in English Wikipedia.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, please stop writing on my page calling other people stupid and accusing them of not listening, at least until you yourself start making a habit of answering other people's questions. You have routinely ignored mine, for a start. If someone asks a question, even if in your humble opinion it is objectively stupid, just answer it, without making your answer unnecessarily long by calling them stupid. – Fayenatic London 08:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

People related to Plato

Dear Fayenatic london, I noticed you closed the CfD on people related to Plato. Just for curiosity, as a split is not something that can be done automatically, I guess, then who is going to execute this split? I hope that I haven't become responsible for executing the split after I was the first to make this suggestion!? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, it's listed at WP:CFDWM so that anybody willing can pick it up. Of course, you'd be very welcome if you have the time and inclination! – Fayenatic London 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is also an interesting page, so I learn new things about Wikipedia every day :-) I'll see if I have time for it in the coming week, it shouldn't be a big issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Planted" news articles already explained

Hi Fayenatic- I changed the edit you made to the Suzanne Olsson page- I will explain why. There have been other pages here at wiki about her- over the years each time the pages got filled with short articles like you found- claiming she was a tomb raider- 'hurting local Muslim sentiments" et cetera...But these comments were made by the man who was the tomb caretaker...he got mean and spiteful because he thought he should have got more baksheesh..But Olsson explains in her book and in many places online that the Project was carried on by archaeologists from the local University- with the blessings of the Chief Minster and Government of India. There never was any tomb raiding- or demanding the tomb because she was "the 59th descendant of jesus By inserting those in the article after Olsson has already spent years explaining how those comments were made- and by whom- and for what ulterior motive...and now she insists the page be deleted (again)...she doesn't want to deal with Wiki anymore.. As well intentioned as wiki editors are- it is NOT appropriate to insert something- anything that is found online just because it's there.. Olsson is a living person and finds these attacks disheartening. She has already spent years explaining them and should not have to keep defending herself. A lot about this is already explained in her book. .. I dont blame her for getting upset....this only happens here at wiki.... I hope there is a speedy deletion of the page...Thanks for all your help and understanding...I really appreciate it...Best. Granada2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated at the deletion discussion, Wikipedia should give due weight to content that is based on independent sources. You have already admitted to a conflict of interest, and I suggest you confine your edits on this subject to the article talk page. I don't know what you mean by "this only happens at wiki", as national broadsheet newspapers are carrying the material; if you can demonstrate that they published retractions, then (and only then) should it be removed or presented entirely differently. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

---

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced - or denied by the subject-must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

The material is well sourced, not from tabloids or blogs but broadsheets. See wp:IRS. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The section of the article in question has now been reworded in a way that I believe breaches NPOV and would meet the definition of unduly self-serving in WP:PRIMARY. As I am at three reverts and you appear to be active at the moment, would you mind casting your eye over it? Dolescum (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced - OR DENIED BY THE SUBJECT--must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada2000 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Dolescum has answered this at Talk:Suzanne_Marie_Olsson#Self-serving_claim_in_article. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, looking at how this has all played out, I can't help but think I've just witnessed some particularly brilliant trolling. Dolescum (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dolescum: I'm not sure I follow you. Anyway, a more independent version of the article is back now. – Fayenatic London 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Jfhutson's talk page.
Message added 13:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JFH (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A category move incomplete

I see you edited Category:Post-transition metals‎‎ (it was a soft redirect), following my proposal [2]. However, I expected the pages in there (articles & subcategories) to be moved too (i.e., aluminium gets an edit changing Category:poor metals into Category:post-transition metals). Could you make a check? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is listed at WP:CFDW and a bot should populate it shortly. Admins will check that the job has been completed before removing tasks from that list. Thanks for your attentiveness, I'm always glad to find someone else being thorough! – Fayenatic London 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, will be fine then. So I missed patience for the bot. (Meant to say: I thought it would be one series of bot edits). -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is most often the case, but the bot will not work where the new name currently has a redirect to the old name; so this must first be edited or deleted.

As it happens, I found a complicated situation in this case where both pages had a set of foreign-language interwikis, which needed to be merged. A few languages had two categories, so I first merged those using {{category redirect}} or its foreign equivalent, and removed the Wikidata link for the redirected category. Having got to the position where there was only one category listed for each language, I merged the Wikidata pages. I wouldn't expect everyone to do this, but I like getting my hands under the bonnet! – Fayenatic London 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving category pages

I noticed that you were manually moving category pages; is Cydebot not working? Normally, the bot does the job of creating the new category page automatically after something is listed at WP:CFD/W. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've started doing this in a variety of cases:

1. Where the old category has interwikis (other languages or Commons). Moving the page instantly and automatically results in Wikidata being updated, so I don't have to worry about checking that.
2. Where the old category page has a long history which I thought might be of interest.
3. Where the target category page currently has a redirect, which needs manually deleting anyway.
4. Where the old page has a template (e.g. years in country) which will need editing anyway to correspond to the new name.
5. Where I want to leave a redirect at the old name.
6. Where the category has so few members that it's as easy to do the whole thing manually, as to list it for the bots.
7. Where the consensus is to rename and purge, in which case I manually move the minority of pages that should be in the new category, before listing the old page for deletion rather than renaming.

Interesting; I hadn't realised myself that it was useful in so many different situations! I have in mind to update WP:CFDAI but I wouldn't put all this in there. – Fayenatic London 06:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Category renames. No, I've not emailed Cyde. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but I disagree with several of those reasons. In the case of #2: a category page can have a long history but typically does not have an interesting one. The addition and removal of categories, templates, sort keys, portal and Commons links, etc., are not significant or creative changes like, for example, the addition or editing of content in an article. In the case of #3, #4, #6, and #7, I don't see the connection between any of those situations and the page history of the old category. In the case of #5, redirects should be {{category redirect}}s, not the normal hard redirects created by a page move.

In truth, I find the short page history of a category moved by Cydebot to be much easier to work with than the convoluted page history of a manually moved category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. Taking the last point first: in that case, why are we asking Cydeweys to automate moving the category page? I see he has replied and is working on it. Ah, I see you have asked him not to... Had you noticed that Armbrustbot doing this already? e.g. see Category:Suncheon. I had assumed that now that the facility exists, moving the category page after a CFD was generally accepted as advantageous and desirable, based on scanning the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive262#Category_pages_will_be_movable_soon and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_15#Limiting_category_moves.

I accept your point re #2 that a lot of category page history is not necessarily interesting. However, a large part of old history was adding/changing interwikis, and current history for this is now held at wikidata instead. In my view it is worth keeping the other trivia that you mention in order to gain a readable trail of moves, instead of the repeated "what links here" exercise that we have to do at the moment.

For number 5, try moving a category. It now creates a proper category redirect. This was fixed very early after the change went live in MediaWiki software.

For the others, I was not making a connection between the situations and keeping the page history. I simply meant that I found it easier to process the whole task manually than to instruct the bot, wait for it to run (this varies between seconds and hours), and only then carry out the consequential amendments. For me, moving makes a happier workflow than copy/paste. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I understand your points, though I do not agree with all of them, but I think we should reach a consensus before implementing this type of change. Right now, I can find no pertinent discussion about this type of change in the processing of categories at WP:CFD/W, since the AN and WT:CAT discussions both relate primarily to the topic of restricting users' ability to move categories outside of the WP:CFD process. I have started a thread at WT:CFD requesting a link to any relevant discussion and, if none has taken place, to start this discussion (and I invite you to share your perspective). If there is a consensus among CFD editors to use the move tool, then by all means we'll do so. However, in the meantime, I think it would be best to allow Cydebot to continue processing WP:CFD/W items as usual without manual/human intervention in the form of category moves. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing proposal because of personal attacks towards nominator

I don't understand your decision, closing my proposal from July 18th. The personal attacks were directed towards me, not made by me and closing the proposal is a way of giving in to the person who made the attacks and not helping me at all. Two people did support, three people did oppose, but I had written a response, which they just are not answering, maybe they will at a later point. The proposal is not too old as well, usually it would be left open for another one or two weeks. I don't agree with that practise at all. CN1 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The normal practice at CFD, and any other deletions, is one week. (See WP:XFD) We have a backlog at the moment, so they are taking longer, but this is not "usual". I would not advise getting into arguments with Skookum1; in my experience make his own points, repeatedly and at length, but generally does not answer questions.

So, it's not as if I closed it early; it had already had twice the "usual" time. Rather, I chose not to let it run longer, because I did not expect it to become any more constructive.

Anyway, sorry you were disappointed with the outcome on this, but you had three !votes in support and three against, which clearly is a "no consensus" result. I also thought the latter were more experienced participants and were making stronger policy-based arguments. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Animorphs AFD

Perhaps you have some thought on this. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would Seerowpedia accept trans-wiki'd content from here? Help yourself! I suggest giving attribution in the edit summary there, i.e. a link to the Wikipedia page. If you have noticed me editing Animorphs pages, that was probably mainly to resolve dead links. I'm not a fan of the franchise; I just don't like it when deletions leave a mess. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I never heard of the franchise before it came up at AFD. I just thought that if someone wrote 54 articles, they should get a chance to defend their work before it is all deleted. After all, the articles been sitting around for years, apparently without bothering anyone. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional captains

Hi Jc37, this CFD has been closed at last, so feel free to diffuse the category to your taste. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Thanks for the head's up : )

I'll look into working on it. I may need to ask a bot user (or, if appropriate just use CFD/W) to move everything to the main target (Category:Fictional military captains‎) and then just fix the rest as needed. - jc37 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, am I glad to see you, jc37! I as thinking of dropping you a line. Closing CFDs seems to be appealing to only a very few admins at the moment, with Armbrust's help at CFDW. If you would care to clear some of the backlog at WP:CFDAC, I for one would be most grateful.

Feel free to use CFDW to do most of the work on captains, you'll get no complaint from me. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I want to get this captain framework built first though (while it's fresh in my head : )

And all that aside, I hope everything is going well with you : ) - jc37 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On the recategorisation of fell running events to fell running competitions

Following this change there are three pages Bob Graham Round, Paddy Buckley Round and Ramsay Round that are now classified as competitions when they are better classified as "challenges". They certainly aren't competitions in the traditional sense of several individuals competing against one another as would happen in a race like The Three Peaks for example. They aren't events either as an individual may attempt them at any time rather than on a specific date.

I'm not sure what the best category would be for these - Fell/mountain running challenge would be the closest.

REWightman (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I replied at Category talk:Fell running competitions. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

here's one of those mysterious edit glitches I think it was you I told about

I just expanded band government and somehow, on this edit, the "References" and "External links" section headings, and a chunk of new text, disappeared; see the previous edit and notice that nothing shows up in the changes I made that would have caused that.

Also I found your comments about me somewhat offensive as being false; I answer questions all the time, but get ignored or misread, or whined about as TLDR; I "go on" because I'm trying to lay out details which it seems nobody cares to hear or acknowledge or do anything about; and I ask qustions all the time, as I did on the RM talk page a long time ago about bulk BOLD moves and the arduous process to reverse them against bureaucratic or just obstinate opposition and find myself vilified for trying to correct gross mistakes; I note that the individual guilty of much of those bulk moves is now at ANI again saying "I have not disrupted anything" when in fact that's all he's done for a number of years now; counterfactual and denialist as always; and blaming the victim once again, as is one of his regular and recognizable tactics. I'm staying oout of that because it would only be turned on me by people who haven't seen all that's going on; and who complain about TLDR or "attitude" while having plenty of their own; and though I could take a whole day to point out all the many things that were disruptive, I'm tired of wasting my time on fools and those who don't deal with one correctly when they see one, while commandeering authority in Wikipedia without having the capacity to use it impartially or intelligently.

This comment, by the way, is an exception to the wikibreak and its rationale described on my talk and user pages; I came t o report the glitch, but since I'm here, yes to vent about what you said about me; given that you used personal reasons to kibosh needed RM/CfD changes re Squamish remains a black mark to me on the RM/CfD decision/discussion process.Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: Re para. 1: you used a ? instead of a > - I fixed it with this edit. The whole of the content from that <!-- became hidden; the references only showed up because a recent change to the MediaWiki software adds a phantom <references /> at the very bottom if there are any undisplayed refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1: rebutting your accusation of falsehood, here are questions that I have asked you in the last six months alone which you chose not to answer:

1. User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive11#Category:Squamish_redux - end of that section at 14:40, 26 February 2014
2. User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive11#Skookum1 (in the collapsed section), my question at 15:38, 26 March 2014

I have just looked at the wikibreak note on your page, and commiserate with you in your grief. There is no need for you to respond to the above in any timescale or at all, but you (and anybody else reading this far) deserved a reply. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Roman Catholics

Why did you conclude that the agreed action was to delete the category? That wasn't the majority view. I think you've been too quick. I read it as two editors supporting deletion (John.Pack.Lambert and Mannanan51); three editors supporting its retention (contaldo80, Marcocapelle, and Wilthacheerleader); one editor asking for a review of effected articles one by one (Sonlnsta90); and one editor suggesting a purge where not mentioned in the article (Peterkingiron). Contaldo80 (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Although there was no consensus, there were strong policy reasons for deletion, as the articles are biographies including living people. I will state this when I add a link to the diffs. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that's no reason for a blanket ban is it? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have given the rationale now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Category:LGBT Roman Catholics. If you consider my close was not valid, you may raise it at WP:DRV. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already - thanks. I'm concerned that you chose to ignore the majority suggestion of keeping the category or reviewing article by article; in favour of complete deletion. I think you will also appreciate that this issue is a very sensitive one. Many gay people face discrimination from religious organisations around the world. It is important therefore to show that there is transparency and impartiality in administration decisions that are made on wikipedia. While I have no doubt of your personal integrity and that you act in good faith, I nevertheless am concerned that there could be a perceived conflict of interest if a decision to delete a category concerning religion and homosexuality is made by an administrator with a self-declared interest in either religious or LGBT issues. I hope you share my concern. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a link to the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 7 on the CFD page. Please note my active and consistent support for creating a list instead. I believe this does not ignore the suggested review process, but rather facilitates it. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Category close: headcount or discussion?

Dear Fayenatic, just a very general question. Occasionally I notice in CfD discussions that I raise a point and my opponents do not react, they just withdraw from the discussion. In such a case it seems to me (but I'm not sure of course) that the point I raised was right. To what extent does this count when anyone closes a CfD? Or is it simply a headcount while the content of the discussion doesn't really matter? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the guidance is at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE. In the situation you describe, I would assess whether you appear to have clinched the argument, or (hypothetically speaking) missed the point. Discussion matters a lot, and sometimes when the voting appears evenly balanced I still conclude that there is sufficient support for an action "by weight of argument". Usually I would state which points I found persuasive, and often it is those that demonstrate that a policy should be applied in a certain way. I would generally not allow numbers to outweigh solid policy arguments, except perhaps if they were stating that notability was satisfied. (This came up at my RfA.) Hope this helps, – Fayenatic London 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I was hoping on something like this but just wanted to be sure. As for your invitation on closing discussions, I think, for the moment, that would be too much of a responsibility for me, especially since I have insufficient knowledge of wikipedian case law. Learning every day, still. But thanks a lot for your confidence! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Trackmasters

Congratulations. Talk about not understanding guidelines or comments. Please see the CfD at CfD. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Interwikis

I have used the other way, but it sometimes screws up Farsi (written from right to left) when there is a parenthetical, it tries to change directions so that the parenthetical appears proper but is logically placed before the base text generating errors. Most Farsi editors also don't use it but wait for the bot. Not sure the cause but it seems that either the wiki software or the windows cut and paste or some other software tries to put various direction changing characters into the stew (because computers are smarter than humans, no doubt) but it's a known inefficiency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

looking for a certain talkpage template, can't find it

What's the template for talkpages that says only improving the article or matters to do with the article should be discussed? That needs to go on Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster. The one I've found is simply the generic talkpage header, I know there's one that is particular about what should be discussed on the talkpage...I guess I'll look on Talk:Adrian Dix maybe...that's another discussion where people disavowing any connection to the ruling party claimed they were "just interested citizens" but were entirely POV in their attack mode, and were seeking to have me banned for being in the way, and accusing me of POV.... not just the not calling the kettle black, but treating truth as POV; BC politics is a snakepit, the worst in Canada and infamously so, I should know better to stay away from it even when seeking neutrality.Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's this one {{Not a forum}} but that doesn't say what I thought it did. His demands I produce cites for the government-media-corporate triad are not about the article or how to improve it, but POV axe-grinding and attack mode, as are his repeated troll-taunts and demands on my talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

They are in fact in some of the sources I've compiled, and more than one from the mainstream media, including being alluded to in The Guardian article. I'll add "not a forum" anyway, but if there's another more suitable for what he's doing, please add it. I've spent enough time on this already since getting up, and my ESL student will be on line in a few moments...and my b.p. was through the roof when I got up; and probably was why I woke up without much sleep...Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the one you are looking for. Browse the categories from the one that you did find, e.g. Category:Talk header templates.

Although I didn't know about your b.p., I could sense well enough that you needed a break before. I wish you had accepted it and gone to the park like Mandruss says now. I sure don't mean to aggravate your situation.

Anyway, if there's more to say let's take it back to your talk page. Please ping me there rather than here. However, I will not be available much over the next week. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting with mixed feelings that Skookum1 has left Wikipedia. It is clearly in the good interests of his health that he should do so. He has been a capable and prolific contributor, but made enemies unnecessarily by his conduct on talk pages. He has just made a post showing that he still resents that I gave him a well-intentioned break before, and refusing to acknowledge the reasons behind it. His last interchange with me here was an example of a promise to come up with stuff, followed by bluster when someone called him on it – one of several unconstructive patterns of behaviour. In the end he has a life to live, and will do better without being wound up and winding up here.

Wishing him long life and peace. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Faith-based beliefs

Please keep your Biblical faith-based beliefs to yourself and stay away from people's User Pages. Thank you. Dickie birdie (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dickie birdie: What a strange comment! I had just re-used one of your old contributions in another article, and dropped by to see how long you had been editing. The latter part of your comment apparently relates to this edit when I reinstated the {{user page}} template on your user page, since it looked somewhat like an article. That action was based on Wikipedia policies (WP:FAKEARTICLE) and made no mention of faith, Biblical or otherwise. Anyway, your subsequent edits make clear that it is a user page, which is fine; thanks. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in moving Category:Antisemitism apparently per "WP:CFDS" that may not have followed the required timely procedures for such a move without decent discussion/s as it effects great numbers of sub-categories, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Presumably if this move review succeeds in overturning the recent move, you will also accordingly revert the hasty move you made and reinstate the original category, or at a minimum seek out time for more detailed discussions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@IZAK: renaming the main category for a page is standard practice following an RM, see WP:CSD#C2D. Here is the speedy nomination, which was unopposed. I take the point about subcategories being inconsistent at the moment, but as they were not included in that speedy nomination, so much the better for reverting the situation now. If the page move gets reverted then, yes, anyone can nominate the category at WP:CFDS to be speedily put back.

Is your point that C2D does not apply because this renaming is controversial? {If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.) In that case, you could have simply pointed this out to me and requested me to reverse it, and I would have done so. However, now that you have included it in the Move review, I am not sure that it would now be helpful for me to reverse the category change before that discussion concludes. Shabbat Shalom – Fayenatic London 14:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for the thoughtful response. Much appreciated. Take care and Shabbat Shalom, IZAK (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Category advice

Hi, I noticed that Category:Orleans Territory is not in line with Territory of Orleans. Does this qualify for speedy renaming after being moved 5 years ago, and being stable since then? (I'm trying not to create any more drama at CFDS) kennethaw88 • talk 03:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: Yes, that looks fine, especially given the justification stated at Talk:Territory of Orleans. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the nomination. kennethaw88 • talk 14:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Avraham Solomon

Would deletion of this article, without discussion, be controversial? See WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. However, I see from User talk:Musicperson75 that it has been prodded before, so requires a full nomination anyway. Thanks for making me check. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Shopping malls in Lucas County, Ohio

Category:Shopping malls in Lucas County, Ohio, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

CfD closure

Hi, please would you consider closing the Cfd from May 2? It needs someone with experience and stature.

Unless we all want to set a new record for the longest running XfD... – Fayenatic London 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Closed. (To be honest, I didn't even try to find all the cfd nomination tags to remove them from the cats - you're welcome to, or if you want to have cydebot or whatever do it, that's of course fine too : )

My memory could be failing me, but I think there may still be some CfDs out there which have never been closed, going on years now.  : )

But then that follows the policy that not all discussions "need" to be closed : )

That said, I'll take a look at CfD to see about closing any of the more recent ones...

Happy editing : ) - jc37 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hey, could you please review my recent edits to the article on Mark Pigott? I'd really appreciate it. RichBryan (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@RichBryan: Thanks for the award! Did you mean this and the previous removal on 10 Sept? Those are fine, and IMHO still acceptable after your declaration of interest. Or did you want me to review the sandbox page that WebSolEditor has been editing?

I was mostly interested in that the removal was appropriate, since I know many of those things to be untrue or only partially true. And, even where partially true are not necessarily attributable to Mark Pigott personally. I'm not involved in the sandbox page, though I'm aware of it. RichBryan (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the deletion I'm referring to that I wanted your opinion on. [3] RichBryan (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was fine. WP:BLP would require reliable sources for such allegations. Although the edit vaguely gave Glassdoor as the source (without a specific link, but it might be possible to trace the page), that would not be a WP:RS – it's more like a private blog or social media, and therefore not acceptable as a citation. Although some bios with positive assessments have links to the article Glassdoor, those all seem to have been reported in mainstream media. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, shall I block your old "user2" account so that you will not be accused of operating multiple accounts? Would you have any objection if I link it to your new user page?

Yes, go ahead and block or disable the old user2 account. RichBryan (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And, link to my personal account, rather than the user2 account which was intended to be for work-associated edits, but I decided I didn't need or want separate accounts. RichBryan (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

When I reinstated edits to Talk:Mark Pigott, I forgot that you were the same editor as "user2".

As Paccar984 was used to edit the article, we should keep a COI disclosure about that account, but as "user2" has not, I agree that there is no need for a disclosure on that one. I propose to block Paccar984 too – OK? – Fayenatic London 12:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's using the Paccar984 anymore. Sure, go ahead. Thanks for the advice. RichBryan (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, before you do that, what impact would that have on WebSolEditor's work on the sandbox? RichBryan (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No impact, the page can still be edited by other accounts. However, I might as well move it to WebSolEditor's sandbox. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, could you review my proposed revision to Talk:Mark_Pigott in my sandbox User:RichBryan/sandbox. — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign. RichBryan (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@RichBryan: that looks good to me, especially as it covers the old account and explains it fully. Sorry I didn't look sooner (I misread your request and thought you were asking me to review a revised draft of the article itself, which would have needed more time). – Fayenatic London 17:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help! RichBryan (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question

Dear Fayenatic, could you please have a look at the procedural discussion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_27#Category:French_priests. I'd say, technically DexDor is probably right, but a reasoning like this would make it nearly impossible to ever post a downmerge proposal again. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories still tagged

Did you forget to finish cleanup after this close? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I listed them at WP:CFDWR (along with others closed and listed there by Armbrust), and asked Cyde to get CydeBot working on that page again. He said he'd get round to it.

As it hasn't happened yet, I started working through them manually yesterday. I'll do some more now. If I don't finish and you'd like to help, I'd be grateful. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian: Thanks! I was expecting to be called away sooner than this.

I've added Old CfD links on the talk pages of the top category, Australia (first country), UK and US (probably largest country categories). I think that's enough, but feel free to do more if you think it's appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Now there is only one left from July: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_30#Category:Arkansas_articles_needing_references. @Vegaswikian, @Good Olfactory, @Armbrust, @Od Mishehu, @Jc37: please have a look at that one, as I will not close it. It's only a "technical" category, which IMHO is obsolete. Feel free to add votes either way rather than close it as "no consensus". – Fayenatic London 16:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Intelligent Environments for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intelligent Environments 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/Intelligent Environments 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. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft Office

Sure about this? --217.21.43.22 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is sold for Windows and Macintosh OS. Is that cross-platform enough? I've also used it under Linux. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free use rationale film screenshot

Template:Non-free use rationale film screenshot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dam controversies

There was no consensus to delete the category on the discussion page. Why was this done? bridies (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

bridies : Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 10#Category:Dam controversies: you are right, sorry about that – I misread some of the comments. Thanks for drawing it to my attention here. I have changed the close, reinstated the category, and left a note on the category talk page listing the few pages that I purged. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just saw the discussion and had the same concern as Bridies. Thanks for cleaning it up.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

....and GTA clone

And can you please undo your deletion of the Grand Theft Auto clone category, which, (sorry) is a farce of a close. 3 comments, 2 delete arguments and 1 keep argument is not a consensus to delete. If you relist the discussion, I'll post it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games; it's a genre, and since we have cats for other genres (I'm pretty sure), I can't see it being deleted if there's a real discussion. bridies (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For my reference, this refers to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_15#Category:Grand_Theft_Auto_clones.

Nominator + 2 others = 3 opinions for deletion; only 1 against or casting doubt, stated only as a "comment" rather than "keep" or "oppose". Whether I count that as 3:0 or 3:1, that is consensus to delete.

Because the project is tagged on the category talk page, the discussion was automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts. You may want to add that to your watchlist. – Fayenatic London 11:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough regards the numbers, but there are no permissible arguments made for deletion (and tbf, ditto, the "casting doubt" argument). There are no references to sources or policy (beyond unqualified "it's POV!"). Every now again someone decides he doesn't like the insinuation that Saint's Row or whatever copied Grand Theft Auto and tries to get the Grand Theft Auto clone article deleted or renamed on the grounds that it's supposedly perjorative and inherently POV. I can provide specific sources later, but someone always points out that Grand Theft Auto clone is the WP:COMMONNAME for the genre, and that it is verifiably a genre (and that there is precedent in the Doom clone genre which eventually coalesced into First-person shooter) and it's really nothing controversial. Look at the article talk page for examples (probably similar discussions at the WP:VG talk archives as well as the genre nav template. The sources in the (A-class article) demonstrate that it's a genre; I've checked and there are cats for the other genre. There should thus be a cat for this one and there is no evidence for the otherwise untenable claim that it's a POV violation. bridies (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're busy. In the meantime, here are sources culled from the first 3 pages of WP:VG's custom RS search engine, for a start. "Grand Theft Auto clone" verifiably Is A Thing, verifiably is a genre, and should have a category in keeping with practice for video game genres; there are games/articles which verifiably should be placed in that category. The WP:IDONTLIKE it arguments need to address this. Sources:

• [4] (Fahey, reliable per SPS). "The Original Grand Theft Auto iPhone Clone Returns [...] Back in 2009 James Daniels released Payback for the iPhone, a game that was essentially a knock-off of the original isometric Grand Theft Auto."
• [5] (Fahey, reliable per SPS). "Gameloft Shows Off Impressive New Grand Theft Auto And Diablo Clones"
• [6] "Saints Row 3 is the GTA-clone that worships at the altar of fun [...] Saints Row 3 began as a way to rip off Grand Theft Auto."
• [7] "Battle of the GTA clones [...] The funny thing about inventing a genre of videogames is that, until it becomes completely played out, every game that emulates your formula is going to be attached to your name. Games that feature a wide-open, freely explorable world, for example, will have a hard time avoiding the label of "Grand Theft Auto clone," especially if their worlds are littered with vehicles to steal and drive." And on and on.
• [8] "But of course, yes, Sleeping Dogs really is a GTA clone."
• [9] This doesn't call the game a GTA clone, but nevertheless compares it to GTA throughout the entire article. "Watch Dogs is at its best when it separates itself from the mold that GTA created so many years ago. Yes, WD is a perfectly fine open world game filled with all of the successful pieces of Rockstar’s puzzle."
• [10] "See, Sleeping Dogs isn’t your typical Grand Theft Auto clone. Unlike recent titans of the genre -- Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Dead Redemption and Saints Row: The Third..."
• [11] "When you make a Grand Theft Auto clone, you better make sure it provides some special ingredient that makes it stand out."
• [12] "It was Rockstar Games' groundbreaking Grand Theft Auto III that launched the franchise's popularity into the stratosphere and inspired a million clones ranging from Mercenaries to Saints Row."
• [13] "...the people you meet are usually amusing and of course the game is absolutely loaded with expletives and other racy material that the GTA clones haven't dared come close to."
• [14] (TotalPlaystation via Metacritic) "Probably the first real unabashed "GTA" clone that manages to still work well on its own merits."
• [15] \"Saints Row is the video game series many of us think of, with good reason, as the premiere Grand Theft Auto imitator."
• [16] "If you read the name "Car Jack Streets" and think "Grand Theft Auto," you're exactly right. This is an ambitious, if not wholly original, clone of the popular sandbox car-stealing design by Rockstar".
• [17] "But Sleeping Dogs is a Grand Theft Auto clone". bridies (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, I'm busy in real life. Unfortunately not many people are active in closing CFDs at the moment, and not for want of asking... so I try to do a few when I have a bit of spare time, and sometimes make a mistake as with the Dams controversies (see above). However, I don't believe I made a mistake in closing this one on the basis of the arguments given, so I don't think it would be overturned if you took it to WP:Deletion review. It was left open for about 7 weeks and notified via the relevant project's Alerts list. Unfortunately nobody pointed out that there is a lead article for the topic. The best that I am prepared to offer is this: if I undo the close and re-list the discussion, and provide a link to the bot's diffs that emptied the category, would you revert all those diffs in order to re-populate the category? You could then make your arguments in the CFD. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll repopulate it with all the articles for which I can find a this-is-a-clone source. FWIW I think the Alerts system must just not work all that well, vis-a-vis CfDs at least (I didn't see anyone active on the parent article talk page contribute to the CfD discussion). I added it to my watchlist per your suggestion but what the bot posts as edit summaries seems pretty myopic, so I guess one really has to look it over "manually" now and again. Anyway, thanks again. bridies (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, go for it: here's the list. – Fayenatic London 16:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

[18] satusuro 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of two categories without valid reasons

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The deletion of categories, Category:Indian committees and Category:Indian councils were in bad taste and to say the least, stupid. When I commented there (the entry on the proposed deletion page) first, the one who nominated the deletion hadn't even specified any basis for nominating it. And then someone pointed out the WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES can be applied, you just went on with the deletion even though majority were asking for just renaming it. And that stupid criterion couldn't have been applied there because it was not any random grouping just because a word is present. The category Indian councils consisted of national councils in India. Should I tell the meaning of 'council' now? Ok, I'll try. Council is a permanent consultative body. In this case, the government gets advice and directions from the national councils. And Committee is a similar thing of the ad-hoc type. Means it is given a particular problem and as the committee submits their suggestions as a report, the committee will be dissolved. Now, since these are well defined categories, they were grouped. Yes, I was late to respond. But that is because I'm becoming less active here. That is because I'm finding it increasingly difficult to convince these overzealous admins, the importance of these pages I create even though it should have been obvious from the darn names of those articles. (Yea, I know the articles are not 'mine'. But the time - that is invested in creating any page and then "defending" it from people who have no idea on the subject - is mine. And I don't want to waste it pointlessly. Aravind V R (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding links for my reference, so that I can find what you are talking about: Category:Indian committees and Category:Indian councils, upmerged to Category:Government agencies of India per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_8#Category:Indian_committees.

I agree that deletion would have been unhelpful, removing the member articles from the relevant hierarchy. Thankfully, experienced editor user:Good Olfactory recommended merger instead. The merged category has 98 pages, which is not too big for navigation. The discussion was open for about six weeks, which is more than enough. I can't see any grounds for reviewing these closures. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I commented my objection there itself, right? Let me quote. I replied to Ol'factory that "A council is a consultative body. Like a think-tank. It easily forms a sub-category under the broader term 'Agencies'". He didn't say anything at that. Suppose he got convinced (He should have replied if he didn't). Then why did you unilaterally proceeded with deletion? Aravind V R (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is already Category:Think tanks based in India. Should these "Indian councils" have been merged there, rather than to Government agencies? I assume not, as you had created the category within Category:Government of India. However, feel free to add any into that category if it fits.

We normally only set up such categories where there are equivalents in other countries, as is the case for commissions & inquiries. The nominator made this point too, and you did not counter it. Can you find any other country's category for national consultative bodies? Alternatively, can you point to a statutory framework or other evidence that these have not only a common name but a consistent meaning, like non-departmental public body in the UK? The nominator is also active on India topics, and he could not discern any common theme. "Council" in India does not always have the meaning you stated, e.g. Medical Council of India and a few others in Category:Regulatory agencies of India, or Press Council of India which is categorised as an executive branch.

@Aravind V R: Do they belong in Category:Independent government agencies by country, perhaps? National Safety Council (India) seems to fit.

However, National Security Council (India) was in the merged category but does not seem to fit your description, nor to be independent of government. I suggest setting up a new Category:Independent government agencies of India for appropriate pages. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer why you proceeded with the deletion? Did you think that the discussion on deletion was over? If then, did you think that there was a consensus in favour of deletion?

Category:Think tanks based in India contains private and non-governmental "think-tanks". (Think-tank is not a word that is seen in formal proceedings, I suppose). The category Category:Indian councils contained the "national councils", as I said before. i.e., those belonging to the government. I agree that "Government Councils in India" might be a better name for that category. I haven't opposed the renaming, even then. I probably was a little careless while creating the category.

I don't know whether any corresponding entry exist for other nations. And I'm not going to spend any time to find one. Why the hell is it relevant? Why is this kind of ethnic prejudice? That only if something exists for US or Europe, other countries should have it!! India is the largest democracy in the world, man. What is unusual if some category for democratic institutions comes up first for India (if this is a first)? And even if a category was created for the first time for some small nation and hence a little unusual, why should it be a problem?

National Security Council (India) IS functioning as a consultative body for the government. That council under the ministry of defense has no relation with National Safety Council (India) which is a consultative body for the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The latter concerns with the Environment and Industrial safety. And since government has control over constitution of all these councils, they can't be considered as independent. Aravind V R (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(this I forgot to add in my earlier reply) The category for Indian agencies was really messy and extended to more than on page when I created those categories. Though it is a little more organised now and confined to one page, it is still very large and needs more subcategories, in my opinion. Aravind V R (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The close explains that the guideline WP:SHAREDNAME was the reason for deletion. The editors who only wanted to rename did not counter this central problem. You did not, and still have not, demonstrated that there are clear criteria for membership of the category. I have demonstrated to you that the word "Council" is used in India for dissimilar bodies. If there is a common status for Indian councils set up by the government with a consultative function, please point to evidence of that, preferably by finding or creating an article on the topic (cf. the example I gave you on NDPB).

The point about precedents or parallels in other countries was first made by the nominator, who I believe is Indian, so this is not a matter of prejudice. As I already explained, it is the way that we set up categories. The reason for this is that categories are an aid to navigation, not just an arbitrary way of dividing up a larger topic. I hope this explanation helps.

"Consultative" is vague; I thought at first that you meant consulting the population, but if you just mean that it takes into account the opinions of other interested parties, that doesn't seem very original or distinctive as a sub-category of government agencies. The article on the safety council says it is autonomous, i.e. independent in its management, even if it cannot change its own constitution; I think that is how "independent government agencies" categories are defined for other countries, and I still think this is the best option for setting up a separate sub-category. – Fayenatic London 06:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Poh

Hi! I proposed article "Poh (Chinese surname)" for deletion. You removed my PROD and made a proposal to merge the article into "Fu (surname)". The problem is that you did not give any explanation for a such a proposal. You cannot make a valid proposal without giving the rationale for the proposal. WP:MERGE says that the first step in proposing a merger is to "create a discussion", but you did not. I kindly ask you to give your reasons for merging on Talk:Fu (surname) or to revoke the proposal. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. Often a merger can be done after leaving a template without a discussion if there is no disagreement, but as requested I have started one. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Query

Re this close, I'm not sure I understand your rationale for "except that Category:Sport deaths in the Philippines should be kept as this is the standard form" etc. Do issues with template template application override what the category should be named? I would be inclined to simply include a redirect on the "Sport deaths" version and let the template suck it. We have Category:Sports deaths in the United States, for instance, so it seems weird to me not conform the Philippine one, especially since no one brought this issue up in the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I hadn't spotted that one. I'll revert as per the nomination. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Intelligent Environments page

Hi,

Just a quick note with regards to the Intelligent Environments page that is currently being considered for deletion. I'm the designated Wikian for this page, so could you let me know what needs to be done to ensure this page remains active?

GraceDurie (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Amilton de Cristo

hello london Fayenatic saw their work and evangelical know you wish you create an article about a pastor of miracles in Brazil 'Amilton de Cristo ellio 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Marcio ellio: Please comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AMILTON DE CRISTO as you appear to be yet another sock puppet of Amilton de Cristo. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hi, I understand your reasons for reverting my change. Although, I must point out now the article shows wrong information. Because the name IPCC has been amended to IPC (Intermediate). Also there remains silly spelling errors like "thrie". My edit, although detailed, provided the correct information. Thank you, shuvambhura1037. Shuvambhura1037 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and categories

Fayenatic, could you please go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Change to category criteria and clarify this edit? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An opinion

Just seeking your opinion: given your close here, what should be done with Category:American Anti-World War I activists and Category:Romanian Anti-World War I activists? Are they eligible for speedy renaming to match the parent Category:Anti–World War I activists, or are we stuck with a mixed bag now? (Either way, the capital "A" on "Anti" also needs to be fixed.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, it's not eligible for speedy because the last discussion was disputed. However, it ought to get approved at a full CfD as it would be implementing MOS. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will attempt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory: I opined too quickly. Only C2c and D have explicit provisos. This is C2A, so could be speedy. Even so, a full discussion would show good faith; but I would process it if it was nominated and unopposed as a speedy. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try the speedy. If anyone opposes, I'll have no problem taking it to full. In any case, it's mainly the capital A issue that's bugging me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Me!

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Talk:ǃXu (god).
Message added 20:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EoRdE6 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A question

Yesterday I found on my talk page a barnstar from an editor I had never heard of and a separate section right under that with the heading Let's chat!!! and the same words repeated under the heading. I looked at that person's user page and found nothing. I have no intention of chatting with this person. I will delete this from my talk page, but wondered if there were anything further you could do. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

For info, I warned him, and have now blocked him for persistent vandalism. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita

I've been copy-editing the article Cucurbita, helping User:HalfGig get the article ready for FA status. I've finished most of my work but was just looking at recent edits to the article. I saw that "Pumpkin chucking" had been changed to "Pumpkin chunking", I believe in order to conform to the title of a WP article Pumpkin chunking. I was puzzled by that because in the U.S., to chuck something means to throw it, so "chucking" makes more sense to me than "chunking". I had never heard "chunk" used as a verb. When I looked at the WP article Pumpkin chunking, I saw that only "pumpkin chucking" is used in the lead. Why would the title be different from what's used in the article? CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted – I agree, and have moved the article to pumpkin chucking. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Domesday cats

I am very unhappy that none of the sub cats were tagged - these were much more likely to be watched by editors than the head cats. I think it is very poor practice to fail to tag cats nominated for deletion, and still worse practice to close as delete. DuncanHill (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

DuncanHill: there was 4:1 support for deletion, so I think the close was valid on the tagged categories, and because of the strength of consensus I went ahead with deleting the others as well, intending to save bureaucracy.

For reference, here is a link to the deleted categories, and here is a link to the nearly 400 member pages removed. Do you wish to challenge the deletion at WP:DRV? – Fayenatic London 20:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all for the untagged categories as no-one had been notified that they were under discussion. 4:1 sounds very impressive, until one remembers that only 5 editors !voted. That is not a strong consensus. I think the most appropriate thing would be for you to undo your close, restore the cats, tag them, and extend the discussion period. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: It would take 400 manual edits to repopulate the categories. I'm prepared to undelete the categories, tag them with token member pages and relist the discussion, but not to repopulate in full. OK? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I'm assuming you no longer wish to re-open the discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:2013 documentary films and such

Hi. So I shouldn't start populating these categories, right? I wasn't sure. They've been sitting there with speedy tags for some time, and a couple of articles had been added, at various times, I saw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at them after following the link from Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Template_broken. In those cases, if people are continuing to re-create the categories, it might be more useful to redirect them to the parent Category:2010s documentary films. I don't think they should be populated because the time-related categories under Category:Documentary films are only "by decade".

Mind you, if you look within the year categories in Category:Films by date, you may see that one genre goes down to year-level sub-cats, namely Category:Horror films by decade. I suggest you ask WP Film whether there has been a consensus to stop at the decade level for films by genre. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh but it's more than that, my friend. Take a look at all the subcats of Category:2013 films: in addition to the horror films, there are cats for animated and drama films, too. I'd say documentary, as a major genre, is almost conspicuous by its absence. I respect that a respected colleague has speedily tagged these for deletion, but I wonder if the reluctance of admins to proceed is partly based on these sibling categories? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a conscious reluctance behind the delays, just a bot breakdown. Are those year categories only in the current decade? I think horror is the only genre split by year before 2010. I suggest posting a question at WP:FILM, or a test nomination at CfD giving notice to the film project. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I pinged you, there, as well. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Religious workers and leaders

As said, personally I do not really like the concept of 'religious leaders' so much, as being too ambiguous. A few months ago I also mentioned priests and ministers that could be considered as religious workers instead of religious leaders, just now I mentioned missionaries and evangelists for which you could argue the reverse, just entirely dependent on where you draw the line between workers and leaders.

Actually I think we can easily get rid of this leader concept in the following way:

1. Upmerge 'religious leaders' to 'religious workers'.
2. Create a new container category for 'religious workers by occupation' which will contain apologists, artists, chaplains etc. (now in workers) as well as abbesses, abbots, clergy etc. (now in leaders)
3. Create a new container category for 'religious workers by religion' which will contain the religious occupation categories that are now in CfD.
4. Upmerge every child category of 'religious leaders by religion' to the respective child category of 'religious workers by religion' (which are currently occupation categories in CfD).
5. Rename the other 'religious leaders by' into 'religious workers by' and potentially allow for additional child categories with other religious occupations.

In the end, for Category:Religious workers, this will result in 8 main child categories (Occupations, Lists, Leadership roles, By ethnicity, By nationality, By occupation, By period, By religion) and a few miscellaneous child categories (Murdered, Works, Female, Fictional, Died in Holocaust) which is perfectly manageable, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it is very useful for navigation to keep a hierarchy of religious leaders, and these can be subcats of religious workers where that is also useful. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I don't want them to disappear entirely, but in the setup that I envisage here they would appear in the 'by occupation' tree by their actual name, so 'clergy' for denominations who use that term and 'ministers' for other denominations (which you previously suggested to split and I agree on that point), and I would show these both child categories as top categories. That avoids the use of 'leaders', a word that not a single denomination actually uses. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clergy, priests, ministers, pastors, Salvation Army officers etc have much more in common than others which you want to group with the at the same level e.g. monks. That is why I think they should be collected together, without monks etc. I don't really mind whether the categories that collect them are called clergy or religious leaders, but the latter is more neutral, and matches Category:Religious leaders by religion. – Fayenatic London 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Fooian religious leaders

Just a quick a note. You might be aware (or maybe not) that, in most 'fooian religious leaders' (by nationality) categories, religious leaders and religious workers are being combined into one category. Inconsequently, in all 'fooian Christian religious leaders' categories, monks and nuns have been left out while other Christian religious workers are kept in. I think a next step is to rename them all into 'fooian religious workers' and 'fooian Christian religious workers' respectively - and then also include monks and nuns in fooian Christian religious workers. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; what do you mean, they "are being combined"? Is this being done out of process?

The third sentence of your message sounds correct to me; I disagree with the fourth. Monks and nuns are workers but are not leaders. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First, not out of process, at least not that I know of, I just found them as been combined in one category in every country. It makes sense, because at national level there's usually not so many child categories anyway (mostly clergy, missionaries, monks, nuns and theologians). Second, my suggestion is actually to rename the categories at national level to religious workers, so then it would be perfectly okay to keep monks and nuns included. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it would be unhelpful and unnecessary to do this rename. Just create an intermediate parent category for religious workers.

i don't think you meant "are being combined" after all, see present continuous tense. You might like to put some Babel boxes on your user page to let others know your level of English and other languages. – Fayenatic London 18:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I was actually personalizing Wikipedia (as a system), but apparently in English you can't do that. The Babel box is a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Genocide category

Hello Fayenatic,

I find the wording on the Genocide category troublesome. The consensus was that 'killed' should be used as a term. Carlossuarez46 states that Anne Frank should be recognized as someone killed during the holocaust, not just someone who died. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_3#Category:Genocide_victims.

I may have misread your second !vote there. I thought you not only wanted "killed" rather than "died", but were seeking the longer form "People who were killed…" rather than the more concise "People killed…". However, this was not a critical point.

As I read Carlossuarez46' post, his point was that dying during the genocide is what is WP:DEFINING, and therefore the category name clearly follow that as the criterion for inclusion. Using "People killed" might lead other editors (following SFB's logic) to remove cases where people died of starvation or disease rather than, say, shooting or hanging. I'm not clear from your post dated 06:31, 5 October whether you wanted to exclude them. I was persuaded by Carlos that we should keep them in the category. – Fayenatic London 17:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fayenatic london, I sincerely appreciate your good faith efforts in changing the name of this category. Stuff like this can get confusing. Carlossuarez46 is just one user. And as far as I can see, my proposal was accepted by several users after me. As for my October 6 comment, I agree that I wasn't clear as to whether I formally supported "killed" instead of "died" since I merely made a Comment stating that I would Support the 'killed' terminology. That's something I wish I was more clear about now that I look back at the discussion. I still don't see how to "die" during a genocide correlates to getting "killed" during a genocide. Let's not forget that the word "-cide" in Latin means to kill. It's in the very definition of the word genocide itself. To mismatch the word from its definition is simply wrong. Above all, I don't think it'll do justice to say that these people just happened to die in the midst of an event that called for their very annihilation. They were killed, regardless of whether they died from starvation, malnourishment, disease, and etc. After all, forceful starvation, and the wearing and tearing of the human body during a death march, was all part of the act of genocide in itself. Anyways, sorry to digress. Let me know if you changed your mind regarding the wording. If not, we'll figure out some other way to tackle this issue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You read it that way, and I agree, but SFB read it differently. The risk of using "died" is that some people read it as minimising the offence of the crime. The risk of using "killed" is that some people read it as minimising the scope of the category. IMHO it is better to stick with "died". We do not want the category name to cause any victims to be removed. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Listing categories for discussion

Good evening Fayenatic london.
I'm sorry I've forgotten to do so. I think I was short in time and that protocol is rather long. I would like to thank you.
Have a nice evening.
Nezdek (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Climate change skeptics

Fayenatic london, thank-you for mediating the close of the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 20#Category:Climate change skeptics. I have begun the process of converting Category:Climate change skeptics into the following: Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists), Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians), and Category:Climate change skeptics (other public figures). When this is done, could I ask your help to delete the original category? Perhaps there is a tag I should then place into the then empty category to allow it to be deleted? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: should it not remain as a {{container category}}? – Fayenatic London 15:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but no, I don't believe so, as the container category is Category:Climate change skepticism. Do you agree? Prhartcom (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've only just read your note closely and realised that one of the new categories is Category:Climate change skeptics (other public figures). It is established policy not to have "other" categories; I suggest that the contents should go back up to Category:Climate change skeptics which will then of course need to be kept. Its category description can say that it for people other than politicians and scientists as those should be in the specific sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 15:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thank-you for telling me that; I would not want to go against policy. I worry, however, that scientists and politicians will find their way into that category. I will place text into the Category:Climate change skeptics that explains it in the way you suggest, and hopefully keep that kind of thing to a minimum. I just removed the two articles I had placed into the "other" category I had just created, and now I suppose I need your help to delete it. Question: What do you think of the "See also" I placed into the new categories? Prhartcom (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a manual of style for category pages yet. Sometimes {{category see also}} is used, but your "see also" section also works. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Fayenatic london, can you help explain what is happening, technically, in Category:Climate change skeptics: Another user has changed my edits to what you see now, but notice in Subcategories, P section: "Climate change skeptics", the name of this category, is appearing there. And if one clicks the triangle to expand it, it expands infinitely. I'm not sure why this is happening, do you know? Why is the category of itself appearing as a sub-category? (This other user has reverted my attempt to restore what I originally placed here, causing this; I don't agree with their edit; I wish I could revert their revert.) Thanks for any help! Prhartcom (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for fixing it; I see now the other person "helpfully" added this category to the category page itself. The editor also made other changes to the page that I won't bother you with. I've spoken to this editor, but "they are right" of course. I'll just let the matter drop and let them win. Thanks again for the technical help; I can resolve it myself next time I see that happening. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't have time to look into it or contact them, but it looked as if they were pasting the whole of a sub-cat page into that category page. I wondered afterwards whether they intended to merge the sub-cat but did not have a clue how to do it. – Fayenatic London 06:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that you must be right, a copy and paste from the other category page by that editor is exactly how that became a bit of a mess. Yes, no question they have no clue. This is the editor who tried to get the original category deleted because they couldn't be bothered to fix it (so I did), then began complaining to others about my fix. They claim to be an expert at managing categories. When they created a second username earlier without closing their first I actually reported them for sock puppetry, but that ended up being closed. I have backed away and moved on, and am happier for it. Thanks again for fixing it, hope this story made you smile. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If left unfixed, it would soon show up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. I go through this every Wednesday (it should have updated soon after 06:00 today, but hasn't yet), and often find that somebody has pointed a cat back to itself by copying code - sometimes an entire article - from another page. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both, please keep up the good work! – Fayenatic London 09:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:People by ethnic or national descent

Per your comments on the above discussion, I'm not really sure what action to take given that comments ranged from complete support for the change, to deletion of the category, maintenance of that category and deletion of the new categories. I specifically left the ethnic- and nation-based material in the nominated category so the category repurposing discussion could happen first. My action merely added another layer of category rather than stripping any present ones away. Any revert action I could take would effectively be deletions of the new categories, which I don't believe there is consensus for and naturally disagree with myself. What do you think? SFB 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: Please pardon a quick answer. I think Category:People by ancestry is a duplication, and should be merged back to what was there already. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable outcome but one that is quite different to what was being stated in the discussion. I started a new merge discussion to that effect at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11. Thanks! SFB 00:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Institute of Financial Accountants

Hi Fayenatic london, Could I seek your help with this article? I don't wish to get into an edit war but there is an editor who is removing sourced content without explanation. Thanks in advance for your aissitance! Audit Guy (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Auditguy: Let me know if it happens again to the extent that the page needs protection. – Fayenatic London 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Fayenatic london, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

English clergy

Good morning! I was just wondering about the English clergy tree, wouldn't all people belong together that are currently categorized directly (excluding subcategories) in:

1. Category:English clergy
2. Category:English Anglican priests
3. Category:English Christian ministers
4. Category:English Calvinist and Reformed ministers

In other words, aren't these all English clergy of the Church of England and isn't the difference being made between priest and minister just a matter of personal preference of editors? Also I wonder, how useful is a category like Category:English Anglican priests with >1400 entries, wouldn't it be better to diffuse it by century or geography? These seem to be leading questions but I trust you'll tell me that I'm wrong if such is the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No; English clergy includes non-Christians. English Christian ministers should definitely be merged to Category:English Christian clergy or Category:English Christian religious leaders. These include denominations other than Church of England (Anglican), e.g. Roman Catholic, Calvinist and Reformed.

As you may remember, my view is that English Christian clergy should be be merged to Category:English Christian religious leaders, but that will need a full discussion covering multiple countries, when I can get round to it.

As for diffusing English Anglican priests by century, that would be a 4-way intersection between nationality, denomination, occupation and period – so probably a step too far. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

O yes I do remember your view, that's why I thought it should be a good step to consult you first!

I realize there will be a few non-Christians in Category:English clergy and there will also be a few people from other denominations in Category:English Christian ministers, so straight merge proposals won't make it anyway. But just practically speaking, the majority of clergy in these categories belongs to the Church of England, right? And then my question is, shouldn't ministers of the Church of England be reclassified to Category:English Anglican priests? Or is that completely out of the question?

I looked at several pages categorised directly in Category:English Christian ministers and most seem to be dissenters/nonconformists/ejected by the Church of England, so it's best not to categorise them as Anglican. You may see that I have nominated that category for merging to religious leaders (rather than clergy), following precedent.

Terminology gets complicated and has changed through the centuries. I do not fully understand some terms, e.g. whether someone could be a perpetual curate without being ordained as a priest. William Gresley (divine) was an Anglican but I'm not certain whether he was a priest. He took holy orders, but that covers deacons; note the small awkward category of Category:Anglican deacons who (I understand) are clergy but not priests (which might make a merge less straightforward). I've moved Gresley from Category:English Christian ministers to Category:Church of England clergy but that's all. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For diffusing, could it be an idea to make a split like Category:17th-century Church of England clergy? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Now I see there is already a Category:Church of England clergy with yet another 300 articles. In theory this category should offer a home for Church of England clergy who are not of English nationality, but in practice it's mostly English clergy after all. A bit of a mess... Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are century categories within Category:Anglican priests and it should probably not go any lower than that. Category:17th-century Anglican priests is a 3-way intersection (period, denomination, occupation). As that set already exists I am not sure it would be helpful to create the additional split that you suggest, which would be a 4-way intersection (also by country).

That's actually very useful for 16th, 17th and 18th century, as Anglicanism hadn't spread so much around the globe in those centuries. The problem (for readers) remains to trace 19th- and 20th-century clergy of the Church of England, except if they know advanced tools to search for intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have looked further, for above those is Category:Anglican clergy by century, alongside others in Category:Christian clergy by century. However, none of the contents are sub-divided by country/nationality. Even if the contents are numerous and widespread, we avoid creating categories that intersect by so many factors. – Fayenatic London 00:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Anglican communion is not called Church of England in other countries, e.g. Wales, Scotland or United States; see the sub-cats of Category:Anglican clergy. I see that not all churches in the Anglican communion have categories for clergy, e.g. the Church of Nigeria; its priests seem to be categorised only by nationality, i.e. Category:Nigerian Anglican priests. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jutland

With User:Sca's help, I've been editing the article on Jutland. See User talk:CorinneSD#Jutland. But Sca noticed there was another article called Jutland Peninsula. I took a quick look at it and it seems very similar. Since we've worked more on Jutland, can the two articles be merged? CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. – Fayenatic London 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP: Help Desk and Category Upmerge

In June 2014, you closed the following category discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_29#Category:African-American_women_judges

You closed the deletion discussion for Category: African-American women judges with the consensus to upmerge to all three parent categories, Category: American women judges, Category: African-American judges, and Category: African-American women. You noted that neither the proposer nor the participants had said why to upmerge only to the first two categories. The reason is that Category: African-American women is a container category. It states that it should not contain articles, but only subcategories. The inclusion of articles in the category is deprecated. There is a discussion at the WP: Help Desk. Do you agree that the category should have only been upmerged to the two parents that have articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I accept this, and will rectify it. – Fayenatic London 09:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As you probably saw, this finding was an odd side effect of a mostly unrelated query about categories in the Spanish Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks for archiving refs in Ebony-Jewel Rainford-Brent (although I was planning to do the same). Consensus however told me once that when you archive refs you need to provide accessdate as well and the closer it will be to accessdate the better. I did this one for you. :)--Mishae (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Neat work, thanks to you too! I never noticed |deadurl=no before, and will probably use that in future. About the dates: do you mean we should put in the current date as the date that we accessed the archived url? – Fayenatic London 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean when a user accessed the link. For example: Someone put a link on 17 May 2007, but if there is no archived link exactly the same (most times it wont) then you need to use for example 16 or 18 May of the same year. Sometimes the link is not archived until next year. In this case you can use 2008 starting from January if the spot in Wayback Machine is marked. Some links I see don't get archived in Wayback for like 2-3 year! Either way, it sounds complicated. :(--Mishae (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, do you mean I should pick the archive version closest to the original access date? And leave the original access date as it was? That makes sense. However, I admit that I have more often used the most recent archived version of a page that displays a full record of the original. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Mishae (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I'll try to remember in future. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks

happy christmas and thanks for the keys for the cats of southeast asia, this am (my time) found a very weird mis-interpretation of what constitutes asia and south east asis that hadnt been corrected in 4 years.... bhutan in south east asia? 4 years un checked... makes one somewhat nervous about some cats and their neglact, the inserted fictions, and .... satusuro 10:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

let is be also said, your various assistances over the year, acknowledged or not, have been appreciated - have a safe new year... satusuro 10:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 25#Category:Genes mutated in mice

While I accept your closure (even though I vehemently disagree, there was no other way anybody could have closed this differently), I do think that it is not very elegant (not to use harsher terms) to close an XfD discussion in which you yourself participated. Given that your !vote was cast one minute before closing, I guess this was not an oversight. --Randykitty (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is allowed for participants to close. At the moment it is not unusual, as only about 4 of us are doing all the closing at CfD, and not for want of trying to recruit others. Moreover, the result of this one would have been keep or no consensus without my participation. Anyway, please feel free to respond to my comment within the CfD, even though I have closed it (I could even reopen it if you make a strong case). – Fayenatic London 23:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, let it be. But please do note that your argument about the number of articles in the cat (253) actually supports my point if you compare that with the number of genes in the parent cat to which I proposed to upmerge this category: 5 (FIVE). Two of them are 1-line articles (so who knows whether those genes have been mutated or not), 1 is a gene for which a cursory search in PubMed did not immediately render article titles suggesting mutant analysis (I really didn't want to put too much time into this, so I didn't look in detail), and the last two articles are not genes at all, but databases. So at best, we have 3 articles on genes that have not yet been mutated (but as soon as someone starts looking into these genes in detail, one of the first steps is to generate a KO mouse line, of course). I utterly fail to see what the use of having two distinct categories is. --Randykitty (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Mm-hmm. I have moved the two articles on databases up to the parent, Mouse genetics. But what about the distinction from the other parent, Category:Mutated genes? I wasn't persuaded by your reply to SFB, as the articles presumably discuss documented mutations.

I'm prepared to delete my comment and change the close to "no consensus" if you think that would help a future overhaul. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good moves, didn't think of that myself. I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page of the Genetics Wikiproject, but there doesn't seem to be much activity there. I've also posted on the talk page of the creator of the cat, but he seems to be mostly inactive these days. I do think that this whole category tree needs re-thinking. With time, any gene will mutate (whether the mutation survives or not is another question altogether, of course), so I don't find the distinction "mutated"/"not mutated" very helpful. In any case, whether this is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", unless some more people start participating in a discussion, I don't see how an overhaul could be done. Any advice would be welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holiday!
	Hello Fayenatic london: Thanks for your all contributions and help to this wonderful encyclopaedia, have a great and enjoyable holiday! Hee. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 26

I nominated several ice hockey player categories. Per this CFD which you closed, its a clear consensus these categories should be merged. In fact a couple of these categories I nominated today were created after that CFD was closed by the same editor who created the ones that were merged. Bad faith creations, maybe, but can today's nominees be a speedy merge....William 18:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi William, I would have processed them speedily if the comments had been straightforward support, but editors have made additional points so I'll leave it for the usual time. Cheers, – Fayenatic London 23:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

CFD closings

Not that I substantively disagree with such a close, but really—despite the backlog, shouldn't we be waiting for other users to close discussions that we participate in? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Who's going to do it? When the backlog was at its height (3 months plus), and some helpful editors were listing long-overdue CFDs at WP:AN/RFC (e.g. 15 Nov, only a couple of uninvolved editors came forward and closed just a few. My perception was that you and I still closed most of them. For the longest-outstanding CfD, which I could not close as I was in strong disagreement with another editor, I specifically asked Jc37 to come back and close it.

In the case you linked to, seeing how many "oppose" votes there were, "no consensus" seemed inevitable so I closed it. Six weeks seems to me plenty of time to wait for others to do so. I thought there had been no contribution there for weeks, although I see now that I overlooked one recent edit by SFB.

I used to think it was a rule not to close discussions in which I had participated, but then I came across a guideline page which said an editor could close a discussion even if he had participated in it. I have just had a look for it and not found it yet; it wasn't WP:CLOSE, which says uninvolved, although that has only been there since 31 March 2014. I believe I've been objective in closing. Several times, where my opinion was in a minority, I've closed a discussion against my own view. The more I was involved, or the more there was disagreement, the longer I have left them running, but it's an embarrassment to leave things over a month.

Even so, since you have called me on this, I guess I should stop doing them for now until I find the guideline that I referred to, in case I misread it.

Thanks for keeping an eye on me! (No sarcasm intended – I value being held to account.) – Fayenatic London 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who would have done it, or when for that matter, but they always get done eventually. Although I don't know if there are hard rules either way, I personally will not close a discussion if I took a substantive position in the discussion, and it makes me cringe a bit when I see other users do it. It just makes the close way too easy to challenge for anyone who disagrees with the result, even if the result is obvious. I think it's better to have discussions stay open for a long time and, if needed, recruit someone else to close it. That said, I'm not upset at all about this particular instance and think it's a fair close—but gosh, I know some editors who if they were in my shoes would have had the proverbial cow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, both, for taking my closes-after-participation IGF. Of course, if you're thinking of old times, there were a lot more editors active in closing, so there would be no need to even consider it. But I take the point of principle.

The disadvantage of the rule is that it may weigh against us contributing to discussions, if the outcome of contributing would be that the CfD may sit there unclosed for a long time. That's why I've been making some "comments" without !voting lately. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that in some situations a close by a participant may be permissible. The obvious case is where an XFD is clearly heading for a WP:SNOW keep, and the only !vote for delete was that of the nominator, a "withdrawn by nom" close can save time for everybody else. In some other situations - such as when you are not the nominator, and your !vote was ultimately in a small minority, and you close in favour of an overwhelming majority - it should be difficult to reasonably claim bias on the part of the closer. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've done some closes like that. If you see one where my action looks biased, let me know. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

Hi, what do you think of this cat? Membership in this association does not seem to be defining for any of the members (least of all the more notable ones like Springer, Taylor & Francis, and such). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think you are probably right. Are they trailblazers into a new world, or just adapting to the inevitable? Go ahead and nominate them at CfD.

Done. Sorry to add to the workload there... I'll have a look to see whether I can perhaps help a bit there, but I'm not too familiar with it, so it may take some learning... --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just closed my first CFD ever (Category:Splatter anime and manga), I think I followed the instructions correctly but would appreciate if you could check. Wow, I understand why so few people close these things... Isn't there a handy script to do all this, like we have for closing AfDs? --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's great to have your help, the CfD crew has been a lot thinner for the last six months! I just noticed your message and took a quick look; seems right to me.

WP:CFDAI is the page with instructions. When you say script, is there something semi-automated for AfDs? – Fayenatic London 21:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a wonderful tool that basically does everything, including tagging talk pages and the actual deletion: see User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js or User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. It's the closer's Twinkle :-)

I'll see if I can find some time tomorrow to do a few more. Should become easier with time :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You've probably noticed WP:CFDAC which sets out the current backlog. Feel free to help on whatever you like, recent or old. There is also WP:CFDS where speedy cases are exposed for just 2 days before processing if undisputed – sometimes longer, if we don't process them promptly!

As for tools, AFD leads to simpler outcomes than CFD, and is therefore easier to automate. Closing CfDs can point up opportunities for quite a bit of follow-up work, which goes beyond what's in the procedure. For instance, after a merger, the parent categories of both the old categories need to be assessed to decide which of them should be parents on the new one. The decision-making could not be automated, but I can see that it might be helpful for a tool to remind the closer to consider each one. Another occasional task is updating templates on the category pages. Checking backlinks to the old name before removing the line from WP:CFDW is something I'm keen on – that is now in the procedure, to avoid us leaving redlinks behind in articles, categories or other important pages.

Hope I am not putting you off! Doing easy ones is a good place to start. Keep, No consensus, and Delete are all pretty easy to implement. Rename is usually painless (unless there are templates on the page). Merging can be interesting. Splitting usually requires manual work, but that can be left on the Manual page WP:CFDWM for other interested editors to pick up when they have time. Enjoy! – Fayenatic London 23:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

I think I archived my talkpage properly, can you take a look? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)