User talk:Smasongarrison/Archives/2024

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Foreign-born politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:Foreign-born politicians has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1920s battles

A tag has been placed on Category:1920s battles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Barnstar

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023
	You were one of the top medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2023. Thank you for your hard work! -Mvolz (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Italian polymaths etc.

Hello! I would like to ask you why are the polyhistors related categories proposed for merger? In addition to rationale in general (non-defining?!), I would like a more detailed explanation. What's the difference here compared to, for example, categories of philanthropists or dissidents, which also exist? Thank you for your answer. --Silverije 23:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to post about this on the nomination. But in general, Wikipedia:Defining, means that someone is consistently referred to as that characteristic. Furthermore, this category has been deleted several times Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_20#Category:Polymaths Mason (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Firstly, I asked you what's the difference compared to other, very similar categories (e.g. philanthropists, dissidents) which exist? Secondly, this category has been deleted several times because "it was undefined, which allows almost anyone to be included in it if they have demonstrated any sort of ability in more than one discipline or area of life" or so. But if you read the article Polymath, it is clearly defined: an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. Furthermore, or last but not least, if a person is mentioned as a polymath in reliable sources, then it should be respected, and that's what the Wikipedia rules say, isn't it? --Silverije 22:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you asked me several questions. I think you'd be better off asking them on the nomination page as they are all related to the nomination/category in question. Mason (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Help needed citing List of Harlequin Romance novels

I saw you use AWB to tag {{Unreferenced}} to articles in List of Harlequin Romance novels. Would you like to collaborate citing these entries with corresponding OCLC numbers? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I'm not really interested in adding sources for the romance novels. My interest is more in categories. Good luck with those OCLC. Mason (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm tackling this backlog Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2024 and the Harlequin Romance lists appeared in my backlog feed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
26		Wasif Manzil (talk)	Add sources
19		Chakma Circle (talk)	Add sources
31		Prithimpassa family (talk)	Add sources
22		Surajit Chandra Sinha (talk)	Add sources
117		Sandwip (talk)	Add sources
86		Bardhaman Raj (talk)	Add sources
336		Islamic State beheading incidents (talk)	Cleanup
197		Chittagong District (talk)	Cleanup
5		Tetulia Jami Mosque (talk)	Cleanup
24		Sheoraphuli Raj Debuttar Estate (talk)	Expand
78		Foreign fighters in the Syrian Civil War and War in Iraq (talk)	Expand
56		Names of Bengal (talk)	Expand
43		Romanisation of Bengali (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
234		Culture of Bengal (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
878		Indo-Aryan migrations (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
395		African empires (talk)	Merge
15,240		Islamic State (talk)	Merge
2,180		Language family (talk)	Merge
40		Revolt of Rajab Ali (talk)	Wikify
358		Belligerents in the Syrian civil war (talk)	Wikify
236		Hindu Shahis (talk)	Wikify
3		Kevin Omar Mohammed (talk)	Orphan
2		Bhojyakheri (talk)	Orphan
2		Ali Ahmed Fazeel (talk)	Orphan
18		Ibrahim Khan Fath-i-Jang (talk)	Stub
10		Masum Khan (talk)	Stub
81		Deva dynasty (talk)	Stub
15		Andul rajbari (talk)	Stub
36		Bhawal Estate (talk)	Stub
89		South Bengal (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Category diffusion

Hi, you seem to have included Julian Ashton in a category diffusion and identified him as a woman.[1] I am guessing this was either a misreading of the name or a misclick in cat-a-lot. I thought I'd mention it in case you were planning to include him in any more gender-based diffusions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I misread, Julian as Julia, while using cat-a-lot, so your guess is spot on. :) Mason (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Tex Gibbons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gibbons.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

7th-century novels

There is still after your merge nomination only 1 article in 7th-century novels. That should probably be merge to 7th-century literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

10th and 11th century novelists

These 2 categories, well actually it looks like 6 categories, as a total have 1 article. Not 1 article a piece, rhere is one article on a writer who lived in the 10th and 11th century in Japan who wrote something deemed a novel, and we have 6 categories where the only article is this 1 Category. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is in 27 categories, including Japanese literature, which does not seem right for an article in writer categories. The article is in Japanese novelists, so we could merge to 11th-century Japanese writers, which only has 12 articles in total outside the poets sub-cat. I think that would aid navigation a lot. I am actually thinking if we want to aud navigation to pre-1200 novelists a list would be better than a Category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks! Mason (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "FOOian", please?

Hi, Smasongarrison, now that we've got the BNA Lawyers, Doctors, and Writers tidied up, I had a question. What is "FOOian", please? You used it in this sentence in the deletion proposal: "This is an unhelpful category that encourages individuals being removed from their defining FOOian medical doctor category." I've been trying to think what FOO stands for, without success. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

FOO is a filler word. In this case it stands in for any nationality category, so "British" medical doctor, "American" medical doctor, "Icelandic" medical doctor etc, are all FOOian medical doctors. It's a shorthand. Mason (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Smasongarrison,

You know more about categories on Wikipedia than I can hope to learn so I come to you with a question. Do you think we need both Category:Texas secessionism‎ and Category:Texas secession movements‎ or should there be some kind of Merge here? Thanks for any opinion you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Awww thanks for the compliment! My immediate reaction was that these categories seem extremely similar. So, I took a look at how other countries are categorized within the Category:Separatism by country, which includes a subcategory for Category:Micronations by country. Using this structure, Texas seems more akin to a Micronation in the United States than an actual nation. Notably, most of these categories do not have both a separatist movement and a separatism category. It might only be necessary to have both if there are a lot of separatist movements that are difficult to organize. However, for now, my immediate suggestion is to merge the Category:Texas secession movements‎ into the Category:Texas secessionism‎ category. Mason (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories

What do you take to be the difference between Category:Medieval Catalan-language writers and Category:Medieval Catalan writers? Srnec (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Medieval Catalan writers is for Catalan nationals, wheres Catalan-language writers are writers that use the catalan language. They're related, but one uses nationality and the other uses language. Mason (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry about the above

I am sorry that my above comment was not written in the best tone. I am very sorry about that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to be a place where positive interactions can occur. I hope you will forgive me for the tone of the above post.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I accept you apology (and there's nothing to forgive). You've made a lot of progress over the years on wikipedia. We both want wikipedia to be a place for positivity. And, I think that it is; heck the fact that we can have this kind of conversation is good evidence for it being a positive place. Mason (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tuberculosis deaths in Kazakhstan

A tag has been placed on Category:Tuberculosis deaths in Kazakhstan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Faculty by business school has been nominated for renaming to Category:Academic staff by business school

Category:Faculty by business school has been nominated for renaming to Category:Academic staff by business school. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, Smasongarrison/Archives

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with eye diseases

Hello, Smasongarrison

According to the CFD closure, it looks like this category was supposed to be Merged but you emptied it and didn't merge the articles to the new category which was never created. Am I reading the CFD decision incorrectly? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to clarify. So Fictional characters with physical and congenital disorders was mostly dispersed to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12, so I merged the category there instead. Sorry, I should have documented my reasoning on that. Mason (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the CSD tags on the category page do not have correct links on them. For one, for example, you have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Roman Catholic chapels in South Africa linked in one CSD tag. That just directs you to the main WP:CFD main page, not to the CFD discussion about the category. I really appreciate you handling the outcome of closed CFD discussions but it would help if the deletion note had a link to the correct discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I can do that :) Mason (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I finally figured out how to do it! (by reverting Omni's edit), as that's a lot easier than figuring out how to get the template to use the link as intended. Mason (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Category query

Hello, Smasongarrison,

I just came across Category:Crime and Punishment in Richmond, Virginia when I was looking at an editor's contributions. I don't think this is how categories concerning locations and crime are titled but you are more familiar with the category hierarchy than I am. Is this okay to leave this as is or should it go to WP:CFD? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it along. I suspect that it'll need to be renamed, because the only Crime and Punishment categories are: Category:Crime and Punishment and Category:Crime and punishment in ancient Rome. I'll take a look and see where it should fit, and nominate it. Mason (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong userpage

You posted this message on wrong userpage I think. That user has not edited cats at Karen Roeds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Opps! Thanks!! you're right!!! Mason (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessively same categories

I have noticed that we havd some categories where people ofen end up in 6 or more related ones. At that point it become questionalble they are defining. I almost think there should be a way to create a rule against thos. One is coaches by college. Some people are literally in over 10 categories. This often involves 1 season placements as a liw coverage coach. I outlined a proposal for restructuring that on my talk page. Basically we would change the by college categories to bd by head coach, and then gave offensive, defensive and a few other coach type xategories. With sports expatriates we have a situation where people in say Expatriarlte Czech sportspeople in Mexico will also be in say Expatriate footballees in Mexico, so one article for a person who played for teams in 6 countries will be in 12 categories for this. I think in this xase just being in Expatriate Czech sportspeople would be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'll think about it. You make some good points, but it might be helpful to think through this counterargument. Is the purpose of categories to help navigation between pages or to help organize pages? If the only purpose is to add labels to pages, then your proposal makes sense. However, does it really matter whether a page is in a lot of categories, if the goal is to help users navigate from a page to a category to another page? Mason (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:American military sports coaches Category Talk

This category has 62 suc-cats and 6 articles. 31 of those sub-cats have 1 article. None have over 12 articles. I am also not sure this is defining. A lot of these categories are also American college football coaches. I am not sure this is right. I am not sure this is defining. In the Barksdale case that part of the career of the man who is the one article in the Category is only mentioned in a table, not even in the article text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What you're writing seems reasonable... I just wish I knew enough about football coaches to give you some guidance. I bet @Omnis Scientia knows more about this? (I know that they're more into baseball, but at minimum they have sports knowledge). Mason (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, firstly I believe category title is misleading. These are all football coaches (even the two NOT named "football coaches") so it should be "military football coaches". But it should be noted these are also part of Category:College football coaches in the United States. So I would say, until there are more categories, we should merge the categories with 1-to-3 articles with the parent category and have the category renamed to "American military football coaches". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say deletely because it is part of Category:Military sport in the United States as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Categ.: Early photographers in Palestine

Hi. I see you're on a big move on rearranging photographers-related categories. I've been personally very much involved in this world, as I am now in topics relating to Israel & Palestine. A go-to category for colonial-era (Ottoman and British) photography in Palestine has proven to be missing and very much needed for lots of activities, and very useful once there. Please do read my reply to your, practically, elimination request, so I don't need to repeat my arguments here. My message to you now is just an attempt of explaining how this category is far from being an abstract and failed attempt at adding yet another impractical, theoretical systematisation item with a very questionable definition and arbitrary limits. No, it grew out of a real-life need, but can also be supported with theoretical arguments, not less valid thany any museographer's who is organising the existing collections and dedicating the available museum halls after a mix of pragmatic and analytic criteria.

Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I wouldn't say that I'm on a "big move", I just happened to stumble into the category. Mason (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:10th-century priests

Category:10th-century priests seems to be an abandoned start. I have proposed speedy merging to Christian clergy at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Mason (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, I have now got round to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

John D. Naylor

John D. Naylor is the only article in 5 categories related to Beacon/Goldey-Beacon College. It merged and changed its name, I am not sure if that happened while he was employed there. This seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I think he was effectively the only coach, and the college merged at some point. I've made a nomination for a merge, which should at least help slim it down. Mason (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The mess that is College football coach categories

Some of these coaches have coached at over 10 colleges, only being at some for 1 season. I really do not think that all such assignments are defining. Especially since some stay as offensive coordinator, or running backs coach at several places in a row. In those cases I think the specific type of coach is defining but the place coached is not. There is a huge amount of overcategorization in this set of categories. My attempts to bring some order are bring attacked as going against how things have been done over a decade. A system that regularly places articles in 10 or more categories for being a college football coach and pairs this with dozens of such categories with 5 or fewer articles is systemically flaed and needs to change. Most of the extremely small cats are in NCAA Division III, defunct or NAIA categories, or the junior college Category. There may be several categories in there that we really do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Stan Drayton is the extreme in this. He literally coached at 12 colleges, 10 of them as running backs coach. I really think that is what idms defining in most cases, not the particular schools he worked for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I've already starting seeing some arguments that a merge who ruin the current coaches system. I'll see how this nom goes, but I'm starting to agree with you at least for the extremely tiny categories. I personally don't see the harm in having individual coaches in a lot of categories, as long as there are enough people in the category. But, I'll keep looking around in coaches. Definitely let me know if there are any other category messes like the Beacon/Goldey-Beacon. I'll be sure to take a look and see if it should be nominated. (I want to make it very clear that I'm not being a meat puppet for you, or that this is circumventing your editing restriction.) Mason (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

When someone was at a place as one of a large coaching staff for just 1 year I do not think that is defining. On the other hand I am thinking there are too many coaching positions. I think we need to simplify to only a few. I think in a different spirt we limited the coaches by team to the head coaches. I think that might be a better approach in college football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

UC San Diego Tritons football

This is a defunct team. There is only one article on a coach. The Category is currently no.inated for upmerger or such. I wonder if merging the 1 article directly into College coaches of defunct teams in the United States might be OK with editors who object to directly placing articles in College football coaches in the United States. The Junior college football coaches in the United States Category directly has about 137 articles so there is a relevant precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Junior College football coaches in the United States

This category has 237 direct articles. I have yet to see anyone even try to explain why this category can have direct articles but the parent Category College football coaches in the United States cannot. We do not directly place people in an undifferentiated alumni category, but we do place people in the heads of universities in x country categories. Being a head of a university is a defining part of virtually every biography, at least if they are more than a figurehead. Going to college not really unless it allows for dome sort of grouping. Football coaches we seem to have divided by level they coached at, so it seems that there is no reason bot to place them there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Matt Dyson

Matt Dyson is the only article in George Mason Patriots football. We do not have any other articles on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

2 other George Mason Patriots coaches categories also only gave 1 article, and another category had 2 articles. The College men's basketball coaches in the United States has 4 direct biographical articles, so there does not seem to be an actual precedent that the college coach categories cannot hold direct articles. What really worries me in some of these is when people act like moving for 1 article in a category to 2 or 3 makes things all right. We need more stringent ways to end small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the 1 article George Mason Patriots categories is George Mason Track and Field coaches. There are 259 direct articles in College track and field coaches in the United States. Yet of the 163 sub-categories, 63 have just 1 article. Several havd only 2 or 3, I didn't bother to count those. This might be a record number if 1 article categories in a tree. Although probably not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check these out Mason (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

College sports coaches in the United States

The more I look at this, the more of a mess it is. There are some sports, such as rifle, where not even one of the sub-cats has even 4 articles. The whole thing is a huge mess to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is extremely messy! Mason (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Century categories are not really good for articles

I do not think we want to be putting articles directly in 20th-century Indian people or 21st-century Indian people. This just leads to too many categories. At any point the average life span is over 50, this will lead to most people being in multiple categories. Some editors will place based on birth and death years alone. I an less than convinced that we need any by century categories gor the 20th or 21st century, but I do not think we want to place biographical articles in ones that intersect nationality and the century. If an occupation is not being diffused by century just place people in thd occupation and nationality cat, but please do not send them up to the nationslity and century cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Drafting technicians

I think Drafter is an example of an article that has too ambiguous a name. It is clear enough from the article, but there are other uses of the word. We have a set of categories for conductors (music), since there are other uses of the word conductor, as a think in electronic and thermodynamics and as a person on a train, and potentially other uses related to the word conducting and those doing it. I think with drafter we may also need a disambiguation heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
166		Duke of Atholl (talk)	Add sources
16		Bishop of Dunkeld (talk)	Add sources
74		Scottish Romani and Traveller groups (talk)	Add sources
6		Ada, Countess of Atholl (talk)	Add sources
27		History of local government in Scotland (talk)	Add sources
6		David Strathbogie, Earl of Atholl (talk)	Add sources
24		Irish Uruguayans (talk)	Cleanup
53		Celtic studies (talk)	Cleanup
11		Conall mac Taidg (talk)	Cleanup
200		Ancient Celtic warfare (talk)	Expand
9		Politics of Aberdeen (talk)	Expand
10		Oakley, Fife (talk)	Expand
8		Collessie (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
155		Early Irish law (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
25		Rhins of Galloway (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38		Nishiōhira Domain (talk)	Merge
7		Unavailable name (talk)	Merge
495		Intermittent explosive disorder (talk)	Merge
103		Phonological history of English close front vowels (talk)	Wikify
150		Phonological history of English consonant clusters (talk)	Wikify
86		Rotwelsch (talk)	Wikify
2		Amlakhu (talk)	Orphan
3		Blue Book Top 20 Network Rankings (talk)	Orphan
2		Big Ben Phonogram (talk)	Orphan
8		Five Glens of Angus (talk)	Stub
2		Gregoir of Dunkeld (talk)	Stub
4		Fothriff (talk)	Stub
2		John of Caithness (talk)	Stub
2		Léot of Brechin (talk)	Stub
35		Lundin Links (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fooian fooers

Just a request to please be careful when you make changes to the {{fooian fooers}} templates in British categories, because you left a large trail of redlinked categories that don't exist behind you.

It's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was varying from standard — before the code you're adding to the template was enabled, the common workaround to avoid duplicate categorization in the UK was to change the profession= from "X" to "British X", which causes your new code to generate "British british X" instead of "British X" as the category and thus created obvious silliness like Category:British british numismatists and Category:British british comedy writers.

There were also a couple of cases of categories that weren't double-British nonsense at all but just don't actually exist to have subcategories filed in them, such as Category:British astrological writers and Category:British song collectors.

So basically, after every edit, you need to double-check to ensure that you haven't accidentally caused the page to become filed in categories that don't exist — if you have, then you need to either create the category if it's justifiable, or fix the code if it's double-British nonsense, and don't just walk away leaving the page sitting in redlinked categories. Again, it's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was wrong, so just please be aware and watch out for that. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

My bad. I'll trackback through my work and reevaluate my workflow, as well as think through how avoid things like this happening in the future. Mason (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already caught everything that was picked up by Special:WantedCategories as of this morning, so don't worry about having to go back and review everything you've already done — just keep an eye on it in the future as much as possible. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still going to go through at least a handful of them so I can figure out how to prevent (ok... more like reduce the chances of ) this happing again. Mason (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Also, for the time being could you avoid making any major changes to Dominican Republic categories? You edited Category:19th-century Dominican Republic women writers yesterday to change it from manually-coded templates-plus-categories to the standard {{Women writers by nationality and century category header}} — but again through no fault of your own, this had the undesirable side effect of causing the proper Dominican Republic categories to become replaced with mostly-redlinked Dominica categories. But, of course, Dominica and the Dominican Republic are actually two separate countries with their own separate category trees that can't be mixed up like that.
  Again, you didn't do anything wrong, and just kind of stumbled into another situation where doing a perfectly rational thing imported an error that was caused by other people somewhere else — it's a mistake in the category generation module that needs to be repaired, rather than a mistake you made. I've already reported it to WP:VPT to get it looked at, but could you just avoid making changes like that to Dominican Republic categories until it does get fixed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Will do! And thanks for emphasizing that the coding error is larger than my changes.  :) Mason (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, the Dominican Republic problem has been fixed, so you can resume making changes to those categories now. I have to imagine it's kind of frustrating to have so many things happen in such a short time where you did the right thing and it caused silly other problems that weren't actually your fault at all, but I guess it's improving the encyclopedia since we'd never find these things to fix them if nobody ever walked into them by accident (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  That was so fast! Thank you for being proactive about getting this fixed :) (And no worries, my frustration was spend reviving my desktop today, after a windows update messed up something. And... finally, my PC lives! So from my perspective, this is a nice bonus fix that worked out really well in terms of timing.) Mason (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, yuck. I had the same happen to me last week, so I can definitely relate. But that also means that the latest Windows update is probably corrupted itself, in turn meaning that was just another version of the same problem! (Damn trickster gods!) Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Suppress categories

Just wondering why you added {{suppress categories}} to Category:17th-century bishops in the Holy Roman Empire and some others. It looks like the categories you then added are the same as those the template is suppressing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think at the time, I hadn't fixed the template to check if the country existed, so it would break a lot. The template I'm using to grab country names doesn't handle many non-modern countries, like the HRE etc. Mason (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Templates

The templates you have created on Bishops, writers and LGBT people are causing an error in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals if the country portal does not exist. Would it be possible to make them to only add a country portal if it exists? Lyndaship (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll definitely try to do that. Do you happen to know of any examples of templates that check before adding? Mason (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Templates are a bit beyond me but another editor User:Aidan721 who I contacted did a change on this template Template:Sports clubs and teams in Fooland category header/inner core which fixed a similar issue. {{#ifexist: seems to be the necessary addition. If I could interest you on looking at the other templates in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals which are causing problems, they are mostly YYYY ones which are trying to list non existent portals that would be great Lyndaship (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

great! that's good enough to get me started :) Mason (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, see you've managed to resolve all of these. Can you have a look at Research institutes established in YYYY. I think they are trying to load non existent decade Portals Lyndaship (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll do those next! Thanks for reminding me they exist :) Mason (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Swiss categories

Hello. I created the category « 18-th century mathematician from the Republic of Geneva », containing 8 entries. This allowed the suppression of the categories containing the adjective « Swiss » in at least some of the most absurd instances of people having no tie whatever with Switzerland (until a well-intentioned contributor creates subcategories such as fist-decade-of-18-th-century-Swiss-mathematician, I guess…). I’ll see what else I can do. For instance to classify as « Swiss » Jeanne de Jussie is so totally absurd and outrageous I will find some solution. Sapphorain (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be helpful to bring these categories to a discussion at CFD to get some outside opinions. I woudn't go as far to say that it is outrageous or absurd. Mason (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem does not lie with the categories, it is the consequence of classifying articles without reading them in totally inadequate categories just because the instructions in Wikipedia:Categorization can be interpreted to allow it. Anyway, for the time being I created the category « 18-th century physicist from the Republic of Geneva » (5 entries). --Sapphorain (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I strongly recommend you bring this to CFD Mason (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What for? CFD discusses «  specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories ». I don’t have any such proposition. I just aim to avoid putting articles into misfitted categories providing false information. --Sapphorain (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Because you can get some consensus on how the categories should work, as well as be able to change the parenting structure. Mason (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. But I have nothing per se against anachronic or otherwise approximate parent categories, since these can be useful for classification of categories, as long as they are not used directly on pages on which they convey false information. So this is a general problem which could possibly be brought to discussion somewhere, but not as you suggest on CFD, as this page explicitly excludes general discussions. General discussions are supposed to be initiated in some WikiProjects’ talk page, but which one would be the more appropriate is still unclear to me. In the mean time I will continue to spot possible creations of categories — i.e., containing enough entries — that can replace false Swiss categories (such as « 18-th century physicians from the Republic of Geneva »).--Sapphorain (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sapphorain, I'm going to bring this to CFD. Mason (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Loewen/Sallis

I switched to the ampersand (&) in the book title (as shown in the Sallis obit pic) from 'and' in James W. Loewen. I'm not sure how to change the redirect title Mississippi: Conflict and Change and thought maybe you had different info/opinion anyway. Or it can stay as is -- two ways -- or I can reverse those of my changes. I did add Sallis to the Sallis dab page, linking also to the Loewen 'First Amendment ...' section. And I emailed the NYT about the missing Eagles book details -- Charles W. Eagles, Civil Rights, Culture Wars (U Chicago) / Eagles provides biographies of the members of Loewen and Sallis's textbook writing team, the Mississippi History Project (MHP), as well as the process of ...; The Clarion-Ledger / Sep 4, 2017 — "Civil Rights Culture Wars," a new book by Mississippi historian Charles W. Eagles, tells the compelling backstory of a 1970s textbook that ... (Google; links wouldn't copying over here) -- in obit; and the fact that 'Your Mississippi' post-dated by a year 'Conflict' (wording nuance, if they care); and did other bits in Wikipedia. Sallis maybe deserves his own page but it's more than I can take on now. Good work; nice to find someone there ahead of me. Swliv (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions about '&' versus 'and'. I'm happy to make that change. I'll just move the redirect. :) Mason (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Page is now moved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississippi:_Conflict_%26_Change&oldid=1208506982. Also I love your enthusiasm :) Mason (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

African-American women chemists

I think this category also violates the last rung category. We may have dispersed American chemists by state, but that is not the issue. Since it is a triple I ntersection it only exists if both African-Americsn chemists and American women chemists have a lower level of categories. The women one does have biochemists, but that is not enough. This is exactly why triple intersections are so hard to justify. Likewise African-American women lawyers will really only work if we are willing to disperse American women lawyers and African-American lawyers by century, and that will only work if we are willing to divide 19th, 20th and 21st century lawyers by state. With lawyers such an approach works, and since we have dispersed both African-American scientists and American women scientists by field of specialty (geologist, chemists, astronomer, physicists, biologists, etc.), we can have African-American women scientists. I have to admit I have thought about the obstacles rung rule. Some days I wonder if we really should have American women novelists at all, which is the Category I was a major contributor to (although contrary to what some have claimed not the creator of) at all. Other days I wonder if it really makes sense to have the whole novelists and short story writers tree at all. Most short story writers wrote novels as well, some works are between the two, and the whole writers tree seems a bit messy. A big part of this is many people were writers and poets but what thry wrote is hard yo easily tag them as except that not all was poetry. I am thinking that poets should be non-diffusing subcats of writers. Some poets were fully oral as well. So maybe we should remove poets from the writers tree, and not class people only known for poetry as writers, but allow those known for both poetry and non-poetical works yo be in both. OK, I know this comment ranged broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Since we have diffused American novelists by both century and state, subdividing along other non-diffusing lines probably works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

lol, no worries about wide ranging comments. I thought that making a category non-diffusing worked as an alternative to the final rung rule. Although to be honest, I don't have as good of a handle on that aspect of categorization. Hmmm, the poetry is an interesting angle; have you thought about how that could intersect with storytellers? Because effectively that's the non-written writers/poets in a way. Mason (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the slash issue

Hi, thanks for raising the issue of the slash in the two categories I created about lawyers in the Canadas. I’m not very familiar with categories and appreciate the guidance. It seems to be a very technical area, but I’m learning! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! I hope you stick around. :) Category work is a unique mix of technical writing as well as qualitative/holistic thinking. Mason (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

What were you doing with this edit? Why did you remove the nomination? StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, I'm not sure how that happened. I'll fix it. Mason (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hyphen or en-dash?

Hi Mason, I just created a new category, got it nicely populated, and then realised I may have a syntax error. It's Category:Papineau-Viger-Cherrier families. Should that be an en-dash instead of a hyphen? It's the names of three families related by inter-marriage, not a hyphenated name: Papineau, Viger and Cherrier families. Would it be better as "Papineau–Viger–Cherrier families"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, honestly, I don't know. My strategy would be to see what other categories do, and model it off of that. Mason (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Having seen how much it took to get a slash changed to "and" in those other two categories, I'm inclined to just let it sit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a fascinating group of families. Grandpère Papineau was a cooper; Grandpère Viger was a shoemaker; their grandsons included a revolutionary leader, two premiers of the Province of Canada, a mayor of Montreal, and a bank president; and one of the Cherrier cousins was Bishop of Montreal, while another Cherrier cousin turned down three different offers of judicial appointments. Two of the Vigers got tossed in jail for sedition during the 1837 Rebellion, and one Papineau had to flee to the US, then Paris, where he was in exile for several years. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes

• Sdkb
• The Night Watch

• East718
• Isabelle Belato
• Mzajac
• Staecker
• Stan Shebs
• Sugarfish
• Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Trader Horn

I know you are in the middle of a fairly full category work, could you be kind enough to close the trader horn item, it seems to have evoked an out of process 'emptying' reaction, it would be nice to close/resolve please. You sure have your time organised in the larger stuff. Thanks. JarrahTree 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. But, I don't know what you mean by " it seems to have evoked an out of process 'emptying' reaction". But regardless, I'm not going to withdraw the nomination. As a policy, I don't withdraw nominates because people ask me to. And, when I nominated it, it only had three pages in it, which weren't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

cripes, more misunderstanding, what about - Please close and delete. I hope that explains, what I had tried to say but clearly misuderstandings creep in everywhere - I agree with your nomination, I would hope at some point there might be clarity as to the need to delete and remove the category. If you want a blow by blow background to the obtuse messages and edit history, I can provide. Otherwise, thanks in advance. JarrahTree 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Colombian atheist writers

Hello, Smasongarrison,

This category, and another similar one, have a speedy rename tag on them but in the page history, you make an edit and refer to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 but I can't find a discussion on these categories. Also, it seems completely different to say that someone is an atheist who is a writer and someone is a writer who writes about atheism. It's like saying an individual is a Catholic writer vs. a writer about Catholicism. Who one is doesn't mean that someone writes about that subject. Can you clear that up for me? Thank you and for all of the post-CFD work that you do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure! So the parent category was renamed to make it clearer that the category is supposed to be for "writer[s] who writes about atheism" instead of "someone is an atheist who is a writer ". Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers. The closing was rename and purge. I sillily nominated the child categories for renaming before actually looking to see if there would be anyone left who met the criteria for writers about atheism. In hind sight, I should have starting by purging. Mason (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Critics

This category is a mess. It seems to be built on a like name, but not like things. Our article Critic defines this as a person who reviews and analyzes something. This is very different from someone who attacks and tries to disprove or destroy or discredit something. We have two meanings of crisis bring merged into one category. I have to admit I am not convinced that some of these categories pass the ruke against opinion categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Explorers of West Asia

In mid-January 2024, you proposed to rename and move the category "Travelers in Asia Minor". As there was already a group category "Explorers of West Asia", it made perfect sense to add "Explorers of Anatolia" as a regional subcategory to it (there are already subcategories for explorers of Arabia, Caucasus and Iran). However, what happened instead is that the pages listed under "Travelers in Asia Minor" (regionally specific) were added directly to the blanket category "Explorers of West Asia". That is not what was agreed and also goes against basic Wikipedia principles of keeping a more detailed category where relevant (what happened is similar to turning, say, "French presidents" into "French politicians").

Can I ask you to fix that please and move the pages currently in "Explorers of West Asia" into a subcategory called "Explorers of Anatolia"? VampaVampa (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I proposed a merger, not a rename and move. @Qwerfjkl closed the discussion, stating that the consensus was "the result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Explorers of West Asia." If you have a problem with the decision you can contest the result . However, I am not going to subvert the consensus, which is effectively what you are asking. Mason (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I have not been involved in category management before, I could not tell that "rename and move" is not a subset of "merge". I will then re-open the discussion and appreciate your engagement with what I have said about the close match between the contested category and the existing subcategories in Category:Explorers of West Asia. VampaVampa (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that you edited the closed discussion [2]. That's not how you contest a closing. I've moved your message outside the archived discussion. As per the instructions at the bottom of the archive. "The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section." Personally, I don't think you'll "win" with the argument you've made. But I do encourage you contest it if you think the closing was in error. Mason (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, forgot to ping. Mason (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Reason for this edit?

Hi, what's the reason you removed a category in this edit? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that it counted as "Wartime", when it was already in Rape in India, and I saw that the header was about "Violence against Muslims in independent India". However, I've now looked closer and realized that it was part of the "Annexation of Hyderabad", which I think counts as wartime. Mason (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you self-revert? Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, just did! Thanks for bring it to my attention Mason (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Grin

[3] - Sorry colleague, simply removing from a category does not mean "diffuse". Reverted. - Altenmann >talk 02:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a case of massive overcat. I didn't update my default edit summary. Mason (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 210.3.136.74. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Olga Forsh have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand what diffusion is? Mason (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antonina Koptiaeva. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:210.3.136.74, you may be blocked from editing. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop reverting. Have a conversation. Mason (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that bleep they were up to but their editing history strongly suggests that they were NOTHERE. I am seriously considering mass reverting all of their recent edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No idea either. But, yes, I think mass reverting is in order. Mason (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They have posted an unblock request. As skeptical as I am, I will give them a chance to explain. But it better be good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'm morbidly curious. So I'll wait on helping you rollback. Mason (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to give them ten minutes to reply. Then AGF goes out the window and the rollbacking begins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but whatever miniscule doubts I may had are gone. Anyone who suggests that an editor with a half million edits over 12 years is NOTHERE and should be indeffed, is obviously just playing games. Honestly I regret opening the discussion at AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; the AN gave you the sanity check you needed. Have a good night! Mason (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Prehistorians and Archaeologists

I am sorry I do not have any convergence with what you are doing with these things, but am really not interested in trying to explain. Unless required I will leave it at that. JarrahTree 11:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "convergence". Mason (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In a venn diagram your understanding of the world and the one I think I have do not meet, no convergence.

In the anglosphere there is no necessary or sufficient connection between the professions of anthropology and archeology, indeed conflation I thought I saw you apply to categories would indeed be considered quite offensive to some. JarrahTree 07:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. Please be careful to distinguish between the two when changing bio categorires! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the note! Mason (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Writers by nationality and century

Your recent edit to {{Writers by nationality and century category header}} is for some reason causing a handful of Uzbek, Kazakh and Turkmen categories (but no others so far) to get directly filed in Category:Writers even though they're already in appropriate subcategories by century and nationality, and thus don't need to also be in the parent category at all. I can't find any obvious indication in the template coding of why this is happening, however — but since the unnecessary category is being transcluded by the template rather than being directly declared on the categories themselves, I can't remove it without editing the template either. So could you figure out what's needed to get the following categories back out of Category:Writers since they don't belong there?

• Category:19th-century Uzbekistani writers
• Category:20th-century Kazakhstani writers‎
• Category:20th-century Turkmenistan writers‎
• Category:20th-century Uzbekistani writers‎
• Category:21st-century Kazakhstani writers‎
• Category:21st-century Turkmenistan writers‎
• Category:21st-century Uzbekistani writers‎

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Howdy!

Thanks for keeping an eye on for the gltiches. I'm working on it; the template isn't smart enough to find Uzbekistani writers‎, etc, when the denymn doesn't have a country in the list. I actually had to add in 21st-century FOOian categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:21st-century_Uzbekistani_writers&diff=prev&oldid=1214518115

But, I'm working on it. Mason (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Geriatricists

no one is in multiple nationalities, which I suspect we have at least one or two who are, there are 66 articles in the geriatricians tree. With that size I think we should eliminated all the categories. I think we should establish a bare minimum size at which we will split by nationality an occupation. Specifically an occupation that is a tertiary sub-cat of scientists. I think we should bite the bullet and place everyone a rung up and group all geriatricians in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look and nominate the last few stranglers. Mason (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffusion of categories

I am thinking we should make it so no occupational category ever diffuses to a cause of death category. The intersection of being a US president and being killed while in office might be something worth having a category for (although it is so small, I really see no reason to not just have a list), but we should not have it set up so we essentially have one category US presidents not killed in office, and another US presidents killed in office. This would also apply to soldiers killed in a war, radiologists who died of cancer, journalists killed, or any of the other rare cases where cause of death and occupation (broadly defined) have a notable intersection. I know creating non-diffusing rules makes things require review, but overly small categories that remove people in odd ways are not good either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that the intersection between occupation and death has serious problems. I think that making them non-diffusing would make a lot of sense, in the same what that suicides by year are non-diffusing. Mason (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

CFD

Hello, Mason,

You are very experienced in nominating categories for CFD discussions so I thought I'd ask you about Category:Oratorios by year. Many of these categories just have one article so do you think it makes sense to categorize them by decade instead? Just thought I'd check in with an editor more familiar with the process of recategorizing to see if there is any benefit in making a change. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think bundling them by decade makes a lot of sense. Similar to how we did that for Category:Danish novels by decade.Mason (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

False accusations

I have just noticed that you accused me for edit warring along with 185.104.63.112.[4][5] I was not notified. No I don't engage in 3RRs and I don't know that person. Please stop your false accusations and your contentious edits. Thank you. 218.102.133.99 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Merging to multiple categories

Hi Mason, I noticed that you have used {{cfs}} for nominations such as this. The template {{cfm-double}} would probably be more helpful for all concerned. "Splitting" categories means manually moving the members into either one (or more) of the proposed targets, but that nomination was intended rather to merge all members into all the proposed targets.

Cfm-double only takes two targets, but once you have created the nomination you can just append " and Category:Foo" if there are three or more applicable targets. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of the cfm-double template, and that splitting means something very different from merging. Unfortunately, cfm-double isn't implemented in Twinkle. I've made the request, but I don't know how long or when it'll be implemented. Mason (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

British North America

I still think the wrong name is "pre-confederation Canada". That is a horrible case of anachronism. The name at the time was British North America. We should categorize by what something was, not what it would become. Beyond this from 1867-1907 you still have British North America existing along sulfide Canada. So the name becomes even weirder. Does it make sense to call someone who emigrated from Price Edward Island, Newfoundland or British Colombia in 1869 a "pre'l-confederstion Canadian" emigrant. I still think this is a horrible name, especially when we have the British North America oprlt8on which was the term actually used at the time and does not require ulus to label people based on future events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rican luthiers

The one actual article in this category is on someone who per the article seems only to have worked as a luthier in the US mainly, I think mainly if not exclusively in Massachusetts. He came to the mainland at least 5 years before he started working as a luthier. Whether we should class a luthier working in Puerto Rican as an American I am not 100% certain, but clearly someone working in Massachusetts and maybe also New Hampshire, especially such a person who is a US citizen, goes in the American Category. In fact I would argue calling this guy a Puerto Rican luthier is in his case just wrong. We should not class people by the intersection of place and occupation if they only did the occupation after leaving the place. A person born in Mexico who imigrates to the US as a young child is Mexican by birth and a historian, he is not a Mexican historian. He is an American historian of Mexican descent, but not a Mexican historian. He immigrated to the US as a young child long before he became a journalist, he was not even a Mexican journalist, and he becomes a historian after that. The luthier is a slightly different case, he come to the mainland for college but his mom was born in Boston. However since Puerto Ricans are US citizens by birth, and I am almost certain there is no Puerto Rican citizenship, the day a Puerto Rican sets foot in Massachusetts he has the same legal status there as someone who was born in Rhode Island and moved to Massachusetts that day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Category templates

Can you please be careful with these. Several of the new ones are populating category redirects, usually because the parent category name is not how the template blindly assumes it, and there are invariably no instructions on the template page for how to override the mess. Current examples of populated redirects include Category:9th-century German people and Category:Kazakh musicians. If the templates can't be fixed then they'll have to be removed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any templates that handle redirects smartly? I'd love to see an example. At present, I don't have a larger fix, that doesn't require adding a wall of conditionals. I am working on the handful of demonyms that aren't behaving right Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#c-Jonesey95-20240319145400-Smasongarrison-20240319124400. Mason (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Resolve category redirect can fix the problem but it's best installed by those who write technical templates. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I didn't know that this template existed. It seems straightforward enough, especially with the test cases, provided. Mason (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I've gotten in working in the writers template [6] to handle the literature redirects (e.g.,Category:17th-century English writers). Mason (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also fix Template:Musicians by nationality and century category header - it's also populating redirects. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

will do. Any chance the offending page in for Russian empire categories? Because that one should resolve itself soon once the category template refreshes Mason (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Bishops by country and century category header is also generating multiple cases. Can you fix it and include the redirect resolve by default in all new templates? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I'll implement redirect resolves for those as well. Mason (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Cfds not going through?

Hey there! I wanted to ask if there is a reason why so many Cfds, which have been closed for a while now, aren't going through. Quite a few recent nominations which have been closed as 'merge', 'delete', 'rename' are stil there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No idea. But that's a good question. Could the bot be down? Mason (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is. I've been checking and a lot of the recent closed Cfds are stalled. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century bishops in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century bishops in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century bishops in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century bishops in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Markos Botsaris on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Excessive categories

Right now we have a category Babson Beavers, which contains a total of 3 articles and 1 redirect, with a total of 4 categories to contain all of them. This seems truly excessive. Some of these are the 2 articles in Babson Beaver's men's baketball coaches, which is a subcat of the category American men's college basketball coaches, which has lots of categories with under 5 articles. In the specific Babson case, 1 article makes no mention of coaching at Babson in the text, the other person was also a coach at about half a dozen colleges and universities. I am beginning to think that A-by state is a perfectly legitimate way to subdivide a larger US category, 2-various rules suggest we should not subdivide with lots of small categories just to do it, 3-I think we should create by state sub-categories, split the coaches by the state in which they coached, and only leave the large categories that remain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

1 article that supports 4 categories

Looking at Category:UC Merced Golden Bobcats, it looks to me like this category, plus its 3 sub-cats, only between all 4 of them have 1 article. I am actually surprised that there are not more categories in there that this 1 article is supporting. The 1 article is already in University of California, Merced alumni directly. Even at that, that category only has 3 articles and 1 sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Defining characteristics

Do you think the following makes sense? If something does not make enough difference to someone's life that we bother having text about it in the article on the person, we should not have a category on it. If it is so minor that it is buried in a table and not mentioned in the normal text of the article, I do not believe we can say it is defining enough to matter enough to have a category, and we would be best off not categorizing by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense. But I worry, that systematic bias might lead some categories that do meet the criteria for making difference to someone's life, might not be mentioned in the text. I think that your rule works pretty well for non EGRS categories. I'll think about it; its an interesting idea. Mason (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Smasongarrison,

Could you look at the categories added to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion earlier today? There are a bunch of these "male writers by century" and nationality categories that suddenly went empty. It doesn't look like they were emptied manually by adding or removing articles or categories which means that either there have been some changes to a template that fills them or a bundled deletion through CFD.

I know that lately you have been tinkering with some of the templates so I'm hoping if you made a change that emptied out these categories, you could undo it or at least correct it. We have categories for women writers in these same groups so it's logical that we'd have similar categories for male writers. Thanks for looking into this when you have a chance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep -- that was definitely me. I made the switch to a more generalized category template, that now works for other male/female/women occupations, but it wasn't entirely seamless. I'll see if I can force some of categories with the template to re-fresh, now that I've fixed it. [7]Mason (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I'll untag those categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to post in deletion discussion of "nazis who died by suicide in the united states"

I'm responding to your statement "I would strongly encourage you to reconsider using LGBT people as your counter arguments to Nazis. That comparison comes with A LOT OF BAGGAGE, especially when your talking to people from the LGBT community" here on your talk page rather than here to avoid creating a tangent on that discussion.

You say that as if you assume to know whether or not I am LGBT. But you have no way of knowing my sexual orientation or gender identity unless I tell you. For a number of reasons which I would rather not get into here, I try as hard possible to keep my Wikipedia identity (and online identity, in general) as separate as possible from my "real" identity--meaning I avoid saying any details about myself, such as gender, age, sexual orientation, occupation, what country I'm from, etc on Wikipedia discussions. But I feel like I must make an exception to avoid being misunderstood. You have no way of knowing if I am LGBT or not (in fact, I am. The "G" part of LGBT to be specific. And you if you want to add "I" and make it LGBTI, then I have a medical condition which some would consider as "I"; it's on the border of being "I" or not). As I told you already, I also had a close friend who was gay and died by suicide. LGBT people are as diverse as non-LGBT people. We are all individuals and what has "baggage" or is offensive for one of us does not necessarily create the same response to another of us.

For me, I feel as though an encyclopedia is a place that should be completely free of any politics or opinions or emotions in general, and should be 100% objective, regardless of how heavy a topic is or isn't. An encyclopedia should be a place to neutrally document facts, and should not be influenced by culture or society. (An impossible goal to attain, perhaps, but it's an ideal I believe should be striven for) Facts will then speak for themselves (we don't have to tell people "Nazis did horrible things", for example, we just have to say what they did, the horribleness will speak for itself.) I used the LGBT suicide list because it was the first article/list/category/whatever that I could find that I thought was relevant. My argument was in response to the argument that someone shouldn't be included in a Nazi suicide list if their suicide was unrelated to being a Nazi. (Or something like that, I don't remember the exact argument) I used the LGBT list to argue that not all of those persons' suicides were necessarily related to their being LGBT, but that they should still be included in the list. Since wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:NPOV, I didn't think it should matter how "heavy" the issues of LGBT suicide or Nazism may be to some people. Regardless, I searched and found Category:Artists who died by suicide and Category:Farmers who died by suicide by which the same analogies, comparisons, and arguments to the Nazi suicide categories could be made from just as well, if not better, than the LGBT suicide list.

I apologize that you were offended, but personally I find it offensive to assume that all LGBT people will react the same way to something. We are both LGBT but obviously had very different reactions to the same thing. I can talk about Nazis or LGBT suicide at the same time without feeling a strong visceral reaction. But that just goes to show that LGBT people are not a monolithic group.

I hope I didn't say anything that upset you further or that I wrote too lengthily. I just felt I had to respond somehow because I was feeling very misunderstood. I wish you the best. Vontheri (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to clarify. I have had the working assumption that your intentions were good. I appreciate your self-disclosure. I, truly, appreciate your attempt to course correct.

However, I did not say that "all LGBT people will react the same way to something". I was trying to nicely say that I, personally, did not want to continue the conversation. I said that I found the comparison TROUBLING. You asked me to expand on that, so I did. I tried to convey that I did not want to think about that trifecta. That I was not interested in continuing the conversation. You seemed perplexed by that/concerned that I thought you were making an intentionally problematic comparison. I am not saying that all lgbt people will respond the way I did, but what I was saying is that I personally did not want to engage in an added layer of heaviness. And, I felt it was worth elaborating enough to make it clear that if your goal was to reduce the heaviness, you did not succeed in my case. I think that your alternative examples were better. My only goal was to convey that an alternative analogy would have been more effective because you'd be less likely to lose people. Mason (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW: There's nothing you need to apologize for. Mason (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I have more clarity now. I shouldn't have said that you were implying that all LGBT people would react in the same way, as I know that is not what you said. I feel (think..? feel..? intuit..? believe..? what's the right word?) that human language is so much more simpler than human thought, which is something that frustrates me greatly. I suppose I felt most bothered that I was perceiving that you were assuming to know whether I was LGBT or not when you really had no way of knowing if I was or not. (Specifically, my perception was that the part saying "especially when your talking to people from the LGBT community" implied that I was not LGBT myself. I acknowledge that my perception could have been vastly incorrect, as, again, we are limited by human language, and written-only language at that.)

Anyway, you said quite clearly that you did not want to continue the conversation, and I fully respect that. I have gone on too much already. I appreciate greatly your response to my post here on your talk page and I will not say anything else about this. I also want to thank you greatly for your civility. Not that I have any reason to think you would not be civil, but I see so much incivility, whether directed towards me or towards someone else, on Wikipedia that it has at times made me feel like losing hope in the entire project of Wikipedia.

I do have a habit of writing long posts. Once I get started typing it becomes hard for me to stop. I will stop writing more now and have already shortened this post by about half of what I had originally written. Again, thank you for taking time out of your day to respond to me. No need for additional response unless you just want to. I will assume this issue closed now. Thank you and good luck to you in life and all your endeavors. Vontheri (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Smasongarrison/Archives,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Scholars by language of study has been nominated for merging

Category:Scholars by language of study has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
51		Charleston in the American Civil War (talk)	Add sources
71		Atlanta in the American Civil War (talk)	Add sources
56		Hans Eisele (physician) (talk)	Add sources
34		New Orleans in the American Civil War (talk)	Add sources
1,876		Cuban Revolution (talk)	Add sources
31		Quindaro Townsite (talk)	Add sources
15		Esther Orozco (talk)	Cleanup
95		History of African Americans in Los Angeles (talk)	Cleanup
40		African Americans in North Carolina (talk)	Cleanup
4		John E.P. Daingerfield (talk)	Expand
359		Slave rebellion (talk)	Expand
67		La Coubre explosion (talk)	Expand
31		Heyward Shepherd monument (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
379		Sequoyah (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
22		Havana Plan Piloto (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
254		Antisemitism in the United States (talk)	Merge
340		Russian occupation of Crimea (talk)	Merge
71		Seventeen (Indonesian band) (talk)	Merge
84		African-American folktales (talk)	Wikify
294		Marikana massacre (talk)	Wikify
39		L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards (talk)	Wikify
4		Manuel Fajardo (talk)	Orphan
2		Irene Wagner-Döbler (talk)	Orphan
6		Aerotropism (talk)	Orphan
45		Seven Angry Men (talk)	Stub
5		Samuel Chilton (talk)	Stub
5		Gibson-Todd House (talk)	Stub
8		The Last Days of John Brown (talk)	Stub
4		Albert Pullins (talk)	Stub
6		Taufik Akbar (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Women politicians by nationality and century category header

Template:Women politicians by nationality and century category header does not handle redirects and is creating umpteen redirects - see User:RussBot/category redirect log. Can you please stop sticking these templates in en masse without making sure they cover all circumstances. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So, I did check and resolve this issue, by manually creating redirects for all the categories. And when the template didn't behave as expected, I hand edited each one so that it would work. So please don't assume that I'm doing this without checking and fixing. relevant example diffs [8], and my edit history [9] Mason (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please extend me some good faith here? I'm not doing this thoughtlessly. If you know why

{{Category redirect|{{Title demonym}} women in politics}} does not work with templates, I would love to know. Mason (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foals (band) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Judith of Flanders has been nominated for deletion

Category:Judith of Flanders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Universities and colleges

The Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven is the equivalent of a school or a faculty within a university (a similar thing might be the Munk School at the University of Toronto). Are there other instances of *parts of* universities being categorised as universities? If the category "Universities and colleges" is also intended to include parts of universities and colleges, should it not be renamed to clarify that? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair question. So yes, there are other examples of suborganizations, and the intent is to include parts of universities. Here are some examples from category:Universities and colleges established in 1889: Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Oregon State University College of Engineering, Osgoode Hall Law School, University of Wisconsin–Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. In the US, schools/faculty are often described as Colleges. The category name was broadened from just "Universities" to make the intention clearer that it was to include subdivisions. Do you have suggestions for a clearer name? Mason (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Something like "Tertiary educational institutions" or "Institutions of higher education" would be broad enough to cover universities and their constituent parts. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Writers by nationality and century category header

Hi, I created Category:Medieval Russian writers and this is shown as a parent cat in Category:15th-century Russian writers which is using Template:Writers by nationality and century category header but I do not see this showing. Do you know what the issue could be here? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So the category will be populated eventually, but not immediately. The trick to make a dummy edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:15th-century_Russian_writers&oldid=1214081477 Mason (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you! Mellk (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)