Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:33, 29 May 2016

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

• 9 Sept 2006 – 20 Aug 2007  • 21 Aug 2007 – 17 Apr 2008  • 18 Apr – 31 Dec 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • Jan–Jun 2012  • Jul–Dec 2012  • Jan–Jun 2013  • Jul–Dec 2013  • Jan–Jun 2014  • Jul–Dec 2014  • Jan–Jun 2015  • Jul–Dec 2015

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Just for your info

Thanks for closing this CfD discussion. The follow-up is done now, so you won't have to propose C16 for upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Wow, that's well-populated, compared to the pre-C19 category a few days ago! – Fayenatic London 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Anand (name)

Fayenatic London, I am sorry I edited the Misplaced Pages page " Anand (name) "and added info that was not in keeping with Wiki policies or standards.I am sorry I wasted the valuable time of an obviously learned person as yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.131.0 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 January 2016‎

Hi, thanks for your message. No problem! – I use some tools that make it very quick to review and undo such additions. Hope you had fun with your first edit. If you would like to contribute some more, take a look at our WP:Five pillars for an overview of how this project works. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jedi

Template:Jedi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — TAnthony 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Foresters Friendly Society

Hi,

I work for Foresters Friendly society in the Marketing Department and most of the information on our page is incorrect and/or out of date hence the reason for the update. Please can you change it back as per my amends? Or advise on how I can do this please?

THanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.74.138 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for being open about your conflict of interest. I have replied at User talk:Foresters1976.

Please note that although your Foresters1976 account is now blocked from editing elsewhere, you may log in and reply at that user talk page.

In short, you should request changes at Talk:Foresters Friendly Society, rather than editing the article itself. These will only be accepted if you provide citations from reliable sources.

You may either do this without logging in (in which case your IP address will be recorded), or re-register with a user name representing yourself rather than an organization. – Fayenatic London 17:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Guanín

An article that you have been involved in editing—Guanín (Taíno) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Millennia category

Let's continue this here so Marcocapelle isn't bugged by the pings or the like. In line with this discussion, I don't think the structure was intended to keep the 2nd millennium categories. I've restored and history merged Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the Old Swiss Confederacy to Category:Establishments in the Old Swiss Confederacy. Do you think it should still populate Category:2nd-millennium establishments by country or Category:Establishments by former country or both? Is that what you understood? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review, I think it makes sense to include them. For example, Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Europe include the 2nd millennium categories for places with multiple millennia but it also includes Category:Establishments in the Habsburg Monarchy since all establishments there are all a part of the 2nd millennium category. There's no reason why they all have to be titled the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, include them in both. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Category move

Hi, FL - thank you for correcting my category error, . For some reason, I have trouble working with the hierarchy, and I also get confused over the separation of categories in Commons and en.Wiki. See and . I think the former is the correct one, and the latter should probably be removed? Can you work on Commons issues? Thanks in advance, Atsme 17:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: commons:Category:User images shows a variety of naming patterns, but when e.g. "from en.wikipedia" is included in the name then it seems to identify where the editor is mainly active, rather than where the images come from. So, I have proposed merging into Commons:Category:Images_by_user:Atsme. See discussion at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Misplaced Pages images by user:Atsme. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FL - can I lean on you one more time for help? I just created WikiProject Accuracy, and I don't want to do anything with the categories because I'll prolly just screw it up and make your work harder. Do I even need to add another category there? Also, do you know anything about templates? The template that introduces the project has a few issues. For example, the lead sentence is inaccurate (oh, the irony), and it doesn't link to the TP I created. Perhaps I've done that wrong as well. Please go easy on me - I created WikiProject Accuracy, not WikiProject HTML or MOS:Projects. I'm an humble copyeditor who makes mestakes. Atsme 23:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: you'd only need a category for the project if it had multiple sub-pages, templates etc. So far you have one project page and one image file, so a category seems unnecessary at the moment. I've fixed Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Accuracy by adding a parameter (which I copied from another project). – Fayenatic London 10:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FL, would you please join WP:Project Accuracy? You would be such a valuable participant. Please read what I've added so far regarding project goals and ultimately, protection of articles promoted and "sealed" with our project seal as a means of countering vandalism and inaccuracies by establishing qualifying editorial criteria. Once promoted, reviewed and approved for accuracy (RAAFA) sealed articles could be protected in much the same way special permissions pages are protected in that you have to be qualified and approved to edit that level of article - if you're not, you will get a message that you don't have permission to edit at that level with a polite and encouraging explanation of how to get approval - sorta like captcha protection in a way. Our project's qualifying participants could also include approved, qualified members of other WikiProjects with established criteria, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. The preliminary editing steps for non-qualified editors and IPs who want to edit RAAFA promoted articles that are protected would be similar to that of semi-protection with pending changes review, so we're still maintaining the original intent of WP to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We're simply adding safeguards against vandalism and inaccuracies. Further, the inclusion of WikiProject Accuracy's seal will help establish and solidify WP articles as not only accurate, but trustworthy in that they have been peer-reviewed and/or have undergone editorial review - something we can promote to academics and researchers and spread the word via an outreach incentive. What do you think? Atsme 17:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it fits the Misplaced Pages way of working; it sounds more like Citizendium. You'd need to get the Misplaced Pages:Protection policy changed. As soon as a page reached your project's standards, it would have to be locked to non-members. This would make it harder for new editors to get started, and unlikely that people of low-level interest would get involved. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

gday from sunny oz

I am now walking away trying to deal with the festivalisation of the universe (sic)

However, I am also very concerned by a bizarre log jam of parent/sister category conflagarations https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Highland_games_in_Scotland leaves me cold. I am very curious as to how or what you would relatge to such a misunderstanding of categorisations. cheers JarrahTree 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

as you choose not to respond, I'll leave it that. cheers. JarrahTree 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Hi, sorry I took my time to get back to you. I had two editors leaving messages on my talk page at the same time, as well as various notifications and an admin backlog where I usually help out; please don't be offended that I dealt with the others, as I was planning to give your message attention when I had a chunk of time.

The first time we interacted, I thought you were mainly venting, hadn't realised you were looking for a reply, so apologies for any offence caused by not responding there.

Thanks for your support at the talk page and CFD on sports festivals.

I have pruned the category clutter on the page you mentioned. By the way, there are two more concise way to link to categories: put a colon inside the square brackets, Category:Highland games in Scotland, or use {{cat}}, which looks the same on the page: Category:Highland games in Scotland. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

nah, please do not apologise. no offence. I am very impressed by the admin material you get through, my general problem is somewhat less clear. The scottish clutter is where I really get exasperated - the collection of parent and parallel categories growing in some areas, that is beyond, in my mind xfd or rfc, it is close to a request for others to actually be requested to have a behavioural or perceptual change. That is where I gave up. Thank you for your advice re identifying the item, useful!

The original motivation to possibly have some conversation over the issue, it was that I thought that the problem with the growing chaos of mix of what I believe are the misuses of the word, and the multiple category mixes and how the particular tree was developing was something close to be a rfc, but I simply have neither the time, the energy or capacity to work such an item, but there is every sign that it might be required if the growth goes unchecked with the standard of replies and justifications to date, if you get my gist JarrahTree 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Edits Made to Dixon Hughes Goodman

Hello,

Thanks for your message. Though I've been a Wiki reader for years I've only recently started using it and it seems a bit daunting. I really appreciate your help and message with links.

I do need to disclose a COI for the Dixon Hughes Goodman page. I'm employed by the company and maintain our external presence on social media and websites like Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure the process for doing this. The reason I removed the earlier dates is because we've been advised to only reference the genesis of Dixon Hughes as our starting point since technically our "merger" with Goodman was an acquisition. DH was larger than Goodman and thus retained more rights in the acquisition. So we can't legally claim that we have the same history as Goodman because we acquired them. (If that makes any sense.)

Thanks for your help and please let me know what I should do to disclose a COI. I'm so thankful you pointed that out to me...I never would have known!

Thanks again,

Aprilanne147 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC) April

@Aprilanne147: Thanks for your openness. I suggest you add a section to the article talk page Talk:Dixon Hughes Goodman disclosing your interest, and mainly use that talk page in future to request changes and suggest suitable sources for new citations. I would not object to conflicted editors updating a page with neutral objective information, e.g. turnover from each year's latest annual report, but let WP:COI be your guide.

You might also disclose an interest on your user page User:Aprilanne147.

If you would like to create a section on the article talk page about the date of the firm, interested editors could discuss there whether the technical justification mentioned above overrides the earlier date for Misplaced Pages purposes. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I did it correctly by adding the COI section on the Dixon Hughes Goodman talk page. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do in order to disclose my COI.Aprilanne147 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving an article to French wiki

Hi, I noticed you moved Pierre de Berranger to the French wiki. Would you be able to move Gilbert Kieffer too? Its PROD has also expired. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I see that somebody else had already done this: fr:Gilbert Kieffer.

As for the process, all I did with the other one was copy and paste, adding a link to the original editor in the edit summary. Oh, and I linked to the French page in the edit summary (deletion log entry) when deleting the English page.

Thanks for making me look into this. I see from WP:Transwiki importers that there is a facility to import the full history. I may use that in future. – Fayenatic London 13:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CfD closures

Good morning, I've noticed you haven't closed an awful lot of CfD discussions lately. Would you be interested in taking this up again? It would be highly appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I haven't, mainly because I don't have as much time to spare these days. However, I have still been doing some CfD work, e.g. doing manual changes to establishments-by-date categories once others have listed them at WP:CFDW after closure, and checking backlinks before deletions. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that! Hopefully you'll have some more time in the near future. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Late-Roman-era eunuchs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Late-Roman-era eunuchs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Urim

Hi Fayenatic london, Apologies for the interruption. While doing some research for a potential Signpost article on the new extendedconfirmed protection, I noticed that you had placed this protection level on Urim Books; this "article" is a redirect to Manmin Central Church, a Korean Church, which is outside the Arab-Israeli topic area authorised for the new page protection level. It is possible that the intent was to protect Urim Publications instead. Would it be possible to revert the protection on the redirect? - Ryk72 15:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the page Urim Books was create-protected after previous sockpuppetry, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/EPANews. For that reason, a Korea-related article was created at Urim books instead. I moved that page over the protected name without realising the history. When I checked what linked to it, I reinstated the protection. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and no issue with restoration of create protection or semi; but the protection actually added is the new extended confirmed, which is currently not authorised outside the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may have been a accidental mis-mousing. - Ryk72 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've changed it to autoconfirmed. – Fayenatic London 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Move

Can you move these pages also per

• Category:Cities and towns in Srikakulam district
• Category:Cities and towns in Guntur district

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29#Category:Towns_in_XYZ_district. or Can I move them article wise?--Vin09 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vin09: Yes, I have moved these now. The second one still needs the contents to be moved. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Category:Cities and towns in Vizianagaram district
• Category:Cities and towns in Visakhapatnam district
• Category:Cities and towns in West Godavari district
• Category:Cities and towns in Krishna district
• Category:Cities and towns in Guntur district
• Category:Cities and towns in Prakasam district
• Category:Cities and towns in Kurnool district

These as well.--Vin09 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vin09: OK, I have moved these and all their contents now. – Fayenatic London 11:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Failed category move?

Hello.

It appears that the bot failed to move two categories that I nominated for speedy rename, and that you moved to process here. It's the two Czech categories that have a soft redirect in the place of the proposed new name.

Is that why they failed, do you think, and can anything be done about it?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: thank you for pointing out the redirect when you made the nominations; I confess that I failed to notice. I have deleted them now, and the bot will do the moves at last. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Hi FL, just letting you know, per this discussion, and former ones on the same topic linked at the aforementioned, Transfermarkt links are not considered to count as reliable sources. I would therefore advise against adding such sources and indeed removing them, such as introduced with this edit. Thanks, C679 16:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Referring to the same page, I would be interested in your logic for reverting the PROD on Sandi Sahman. The page was most likely created by the subject himself, and contains only self-promotional material copied directly from the subject's own website, complete with badly spelled English translations (eg "booth feeted"). Also there are unreferenced (and unverifiable) claims to notoriety through playing for the Bosnia-Herzegovina national team. Cheers Gricehead (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll stay away from PRODded football pages in future, as I evidently don't know what makes a good source. I have also replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Sandi_Sahman. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Potentially a new section in CFD

I started a proposal at village pump here for a new section in CFD called CFRc (Categories for recategorization) where users who like to change sub- or parent-categories, can ask the experienced community. I believe you will like to join the discussion and poll. CN1 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tasmanian suburbs

Sheesh, what a mess, apology. you also have mail.

It started at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_12

then https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_13

then https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_17#Category:Suburbs_of_Huon_Valley_Council.2C_Tasmania thanks for any centralising you have done JarrahTree 13:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers – I have linked them all now. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - the best summary/overview/checklist is at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tasmania

and the original cfd on the 13th of April - Suburbs of West Coast category is the editor has revealed knowledge sufficient to show that the usage of the word suburb is incorrect, in their own words, sigh. JarrahTree 13:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I refer to the NSW Hunter Region Categories which are local government categories of Suburbs. I have read the definition of a Suburb. These are suburbs of a local government area. Local Government areas have also been classified as cities. I am trying to be consistent and I have run into two people intent on destroying and vandalising these categories. They are a category a means of grouping like for like items to easily navigate between the areas and grouping them consistently. Seems their knowledge and research is lacking. They have not viewed how others have categorized in the same way. Mmunji1 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Mmunji1: I have no axe to grind on this, I was just maintaining the link to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_17#Category:Suburbs_of_Huon_Valley_Council.2C_Tasmania. Please comment there and at the previous discussions linked there. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Shaw Media

Corus bought out the entirety of Shaw Media including Global earlier this year, so a few weeks ago all of the Shaw category's other contents got recategorized accordingly, and the eponym is now really the only thing left in it anymore. So in that particular instance, what they did is reasonable per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, since there are no other potential contents left for the Shaw category anymore. I fully agree with your reversion on the IP's non-consensus merger of the television series by production company categories, though. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Closure of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14#Subtypes of incest in fiction

Hey! I think you misinterpreted the – admittedly confusing – discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14#Subtypes of incest in fiction. Clearly, noone voted to keep the original categories. But IMHO only the last commenter really supported the original merge proposal, while I opposed it, with Peterkingiron most probably supporting my alt rename proposal (which I should have clearly marked as such). Merging Cousin relationships into an incest category is a no-go, as they're not regarded incestuous in large parts of the world. I really think we should relist to allow recreation of separate categories. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry – you are right. I will revise this later when I have time to trace the changes. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have re-created and re-listed those two at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your outstanding response! The discussion really was quite confusing, but IMHO the relist will most probably produce a clear consensus. Thanks again, and best regards, PanchoS (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

CFD closure

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to object to your closing of this discussion, in light of this earlier discussion. Do you really feel that you are neutral or uninvolved with this general issue? You may indeed be neutral, but it certainly has at least the appearance that you would not be. Good Ol’factory 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, looking at it now I can see that prima facie that would be an objection which might stand up. I remembered that I had participated in a RM discussion last year and that I had favoured consistent naming of those states in Misplaced Pages, but I had completely forgotten that you were also involved in that discussion last October, so I apologise for giving any appearance of being sneaky over it.

After the RM was inconclusive, I didn't really care which way it went, so I haven't watched or participated in that topic for over six months. I've been involved in unrelated discussions which happen to be recorded at Talk:Kwara and Talk:Lagos State about bad articles Kwarans and Lagosians which were full of fake citations, but I've not been involved on naming of articles/categories for states.

Today (as on previous occasions) I've been working up from the bottom of WP:CFDAC excluding those in which I had expressed my own opinions, and I came to this one, of which I was previously unaware, and it seemed to me that there was a consensus, so I closed it as having consensus, and spent the next 10 minutes manually tagging the talk pages.

Let me know whether you can live with that. If you still object, then OK, I'll revert myself and Cydebot, and reopen the discussion. – Fayenatic London 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think I can live with you closing the discussion—I had guessed that you didn't in fact have a strong opinion about the issue, otherwise I thought if you had remembered you wouldn't have closed it. There's an appearance of possible non-neutrality, but I also doubt that anyone else will object. That said, I guess I was hoping that a "no consensus" result could be squeezed out of the discussion. I'm not sure that there is a consensus that the status quo is desirable—there was support for renaming at least some of them from me and two other editors, and then there were three others who opposed, and the opposition was for a variety of reasons, many of them simply procedural as opposed to opposing the idea on the merits. A theme of those opposing seemed to be that users wanted the article names to be changed in various ways. Some of the articles are now under discussion, so I had hoped that a no consensus result would allow for a re-nomination based on the article discussion results, if needed. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Good Ol’factory 03:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for your respectful approach. As I read the discussion, four editors (whether they !voted or not) had a preference for all pages/categories to be at StateName State, and another recorded a formal Oppose at least for the ambiguous ones, which IMHO added up to consensus. I'll add this reasoning to the close. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the further info added to the close. That definitely helps! Good Ol’factory 00:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chang You

There is another RM. You were involved; I invite you to the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. – Fayenatic London 08:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

georgia novels by writer

No! I had a speedy rename request for that category to replace Category:Georgian novels by author. Why did you delete it in spite of that? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please forgive me for not including a more specific rationale in the deletion log. I had moved the Speedy proposal onto the Working page to be processed by Cydebot. I expected the bot to move the old page over the new one in a few minutes. However, the bot seems to be being a bit slow to get started. If it takes much longer I will email Cyde.

Anyway, apart from the delay, this is how category renames work these days: the old page gets moved, so we do not create the new page first. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I was worried I had goofed up the rename request. Sorry for getting panicky! Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant category

Thanks for tidying up this category post the CfD discussion. Since you purged it, another editor has been adding the category back here:

Any advice on how to react? Oncenawhile (talk)

I reverted your edit to Category:Southern Levant. The category page used to say that "This category includes articles and subcategories which specifically relate to the region of the Southern Levant. It should not duplicate other similar regional categories such as Category:Israel and Category:Palestine, which are the primary categories for those regions." In the whole discussion, nobody proposed to diffuse this category into Category:Palestine (region), just Category:Ancient Levant was mentioned. Suddenly you close this discussion and 1. add Category:Palestine (region) to your closure, and then 2. Remove Category:Israel from the category page. That is as POV an edit as they come, and is completely unacceptable. I consequently also reverted your closure as out of order. Likewise I undid most (not all) of the edits in which you removed Category:Southern Levant, but failed to replace it by something else. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Look at the "Articles to be purged" collapsed section of the discussion: Category:Palestine (region) was mentioned repeatedly in that it already contained most of the former contents of the nominated category. That's why I included that in the category disambiguation page.

The Israel and Lebanon sub-categories were already in Category:Levant at the time I closed the discussion; only Category:Jordan and Category:Palestine (region) were not. That's why I upmerged those two instead of just purging them along with the rest of the contents.

Are you now able to withdraw your allegation of POV editing? – Fayenatic London 23:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I did see that list.

Purging is a rather unorthodox result at Cfd. I know, because at one time I was rather active there myself. Purging is basically deleting without deleting. That was definitely not the outcome of that discussion, in which the keeps (and merges) by far outweighed the deletes. Upmerging is what should have been the closure, and what you should have done. Which is why I reverted most of those edits.

I am willing to say that the result of your closure and edits was POV, and have no reason to suspect you personally of having a POV in this area. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Unorthodox" describes your reversion of a close. It has been more than two months since User:Marcocapelle opened the discussion. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for the correct procedure here. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Further adding that there was no consensus to purge, and that Southern Levant and Levant are academically significant terms with wide usage in the field, despite some editors not wishing this to be the case. Drsmoo (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you are no in position to judge consensus, given your long running crusade on this topic. You voted in the discussion, but were in the minority. Please respect the views of the community. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Lol, excuse me? I am not nor have I ever crusaded for any topic. You're the one who has made several POV runs through all of WIkipedia deleting all references to Southern Levant (without mentioning so in diffs) over a period of seconds, while proclaiming it to be a political neologism. Fixing your edits is not the same. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you have been continually asked to (1) follow sources, and (2) follow Misplaced Pages's established policies and procedures by engaging in discussion. That is all that is required here. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile As I always have done. It's pretty rich though for someone who has not only gone through wikipedia deleting references to the Southern Levant, not just in categories but in articles (ie, deleting Southern Levant and writing in "the region"), has called the Levant a "political neologism" that should be removed, and after an overwhelming consensus to move Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine Archaeology, you IMMEDIATELY declared that you were going to open the exact same move discussion to have it moved back again (which was of course called out by other editors on the page), for that person to accuse someone else of "crusading", is ridiculous. I have always abided, and will continue to abide by, wikipedia rules. I also won't make personal attacks, or lie to other editors. Drsmoo (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile The point is that the view of the community is not what the closure said it was. Given your position, I think you too are not in a position to judge as well... Just to clarify, I respect both you and Fayenatic london, but I see that a mistake was made, and want it to be fixed, and want to give the closing editor a fair chance to do so, without going through the annoying formalities of WP:DR. So far, I see he is willing to listen to my arguments, and I have hope that we can come to an acceptable outcome for all. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note that I did not simply revert your edits, like you reverted mine. I kept some, upmerged or recategorized others. That is completely in line with the discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Debresser I respect you too, and our interactions have usually been very reasonable. But in this instance you have stated a clear point-of-view (stated in your post-close keep vote), and therefore are not independent. All of us regulars in the IP-arena (you, me, Drsmoo, Greyshark in the vote) try in good faith to be non-POV, at least as far as what we believe non-POV to be, but we are certainly not "independent". Our processes are supposed to bring in independent editors such as Fayenatic to do their best to assess a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. In addition, the two month CFD discussion attracted many editors who are not regulars in IP discussions, bringing in wholly unbiased views. These processes should be respected. The review process for closes that you disagree with is very clear.

Also your re-reverts have crossed WP:1RR on categories that are clearly ARBPIA-related. Please self-revert them pending discussion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that we are both not independent, as you call it. By the way, the number of participants in the discussion was not that high, but definitely high enough to be able to establish consensus. And I agree with that consensus, and my opinion is none other than the consensus! But that consensus is not deletion, rather upmerging and other forms of recategorization. I think the usage of the word "purge" might have confused Fayenatic london somewhat in this respect, but the wholesale removal of categories was not something that the discussion implied, rather a smart upmerge/recategorization, as has been completed now (by our combined edits). Debresser (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a merging, rather a wholesale deletion. A select few articles were moved into Levant, most were not. Drsmoo (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Drsmo As a matter of fact, all are now either in some Levant category, or in a category which is second in a Levant category tree. These categories are in most cases more precise than just "Southern Levant", like "History of the Levant" or "Ancient Levant" or "Land of Israel". Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile Thanks for fixing my mistakes. I agree reverting was a bit unorthodox, and I agree it bordered on 1RR restrictions, if strictly interpreted, but keeping in mind WP:IAR I think the result is actually for the better, wouldn't you say? Debresser (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I had thought we were close but looking at Category:Southern Levant it looks like everything has been re-re-reverted again. I am losing track. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly urge to revert all edits made after the closure of the category discussion and if people disagree with the closure they should follow the normal procedures. I'm not even sure, as nominator, whether I agree with the closure but it has become totally impossible for me to judge that after what happened since, and I think I should have the chance to check that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile What happened is User:Dsrmoo. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle Do you want to do the honors at CSD? Debresser (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle What practically happened is that the category Southern Levant was upmerged and otherwise re-categorized, which is what the consensus was of that discussion. Fayenatic london wrote a new closure of the proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back. I have made a revised close at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 16#Category:Southern Levant. If anyone thinks it should be challenged, by all means take it to WP:DRV. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Fayenatic london Reading your new closure, which I am completely at ease with, might I suggest to add foremost Category:Levant itself, and then Category:History of the Levant and Category:Ancient Israel and Judah as well? Debresser (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. OK to Category:Levant. Category:History of the Levant is a parent of Category:Ancient Levant, so I'll substitute that. As for Category:Ancient Israel and Judah , it's a sub-sub-cat of Category:Land of Israel, so I don't think it's necessary. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And thanks too to everyone else who has contributed constructively (e.g. re-categorising the contents more specifically – there were once again no contents in the category by the time I re-closed the CFD). I knew that this was a "bold" close; on a straight numerical count without weighing comments against policy, I could have found "no consensus", but I always look for the opportunity to extract some useful outcome from a discussion. I recognise that I could have avoided the trouble here by wording the close more carefully (and more conventionally), and apologise for thus being partly responsible for the resulting to-and-fro. I think it has ended well. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Radio and TV cats

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_19#Category:Radio_stations_and_networks_by_content

Per the above, would you suggest a similar outcome for: Category:Television channels and networks by content? - jc37 09:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Jc37: Yes, and I'd process it if nominated at the Speedy page as C2C. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)