Welcome!

Hello, Place Clichy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Okay, I have restored the redirect, but I see no links to it. Deb (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it was showing up as a new article, hence the move seems to have been from a recently-created article. Deb (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been busy on other things. I have yet to write up the documentation on the changes I have made. I'll do that sometime over the next 24 hours.

The original two unnamed parameters will still work in much the way as they did before, but I am going to leave them undocumented (and depreciate their use) as it will be better to use named parameters as they are more flexible. I have put in enough documentation to cover anyone who needs to add a new template until such time as I write up the documentation.

So I hope it will satisfy you for the moment. -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

{{1911|London}}	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
{{1911|article=London}}	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "London". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{1911|wikisource=London}}	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |wikisource= ignored (help)
{{1911|wikisource=London|inline=1}}	One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |wikisource= ignored (help)
{{1911|article=London|inline=1}}	One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "London". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{1911|article=London|no-prescript=1}}	Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "London". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

--PBS (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now that Nome (country subdivision) points to a disambig, could you help out fixing links per WP:FIXDABLINKS? I've found navigation popups to be very useful when you set the popupFixDabs flag to true. --JaGa^talk 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jean-Michel Thierry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I cannot find any sources that directly address this author (only the book he co-wrote). I find this subject of this article to not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the recently added categories in Anastasius (Samaria), "clergy" strikes me as odd. He doesn't seem to have ever been a priest. Am I missing something? Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your action on the ship that was built in Poland. The reason is, that I try to use two different systems: "Built in" and "Built at". For the schips by name you can find the country of building, the category by IMO number shows the shipyard. Combining will be double and there are a number of too strict rule-followers who will throw away one of the categories. I hope this way of working will survive. Experts work by IMO numbers and are interested in the yards. The gerenal publc is not very interested in the yards, only the country where a ship was built. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not as duplicate of Category:Roman Catholic churches. Churches is ambiguous and since it applies to both buildings and congregations and denominations. Also, it is against guidelines to empty categories. If you want to move or rename a category you must use WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of church buildings was decided by consensus several months ago. Due to the way categories work, it is more important that the names be unambiguous. If anything should be eliminated, we should probably explore eliminating Category:xxx churches since that is the ambiguous term. Of course that should be kept if it makes sense to bring all of the various uses of the term church at that name. I'm not convinced that that would be the right move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of municipalities of Greece (2011), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cythera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. The footballers Giannis Amanatidis and Ioannis Maniatis are not Greek MPs. There is a teacher named Giannis Amanatidis and an engineer named Giannis Maniatis who were elected MPs, I assume you meant to add them. – Kosm1fent 15:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing that! It is far from uncommon to have sportspeople joining politics, so I was not surprised to see footballers in the list. If you are familiar with Greece, have a look at the list of members of the Hellenic Parliament, May–June 2012, that I just compiled, to see if some blue links (or red links) have to be corrected. Place Clichy (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've red-linked the two MPs I've mentioned above and added an external link to the Parliament's website. The problem is, however, that most Greek MPs don't have articles; such a shame, considering that all of them would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FTSE/Athex Large Cap, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FTSE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out. I was wondering what happened and couldn't work it out. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of matrilineal or matrilocal societies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrique (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Clockwork Orange (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Silver Ribbon]] (''Nastro d'Argento'') 1973 for Best Foreign Director - Stanley Kubrick (awarded by the Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voulgaris may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{ill|fr|Nicolas Voulgaris) (1634-after 1684), Greek theologian and physician

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes you suggested. I think I originally did mean to color in Kosovo, but forgot because of how much effort the other changes took. SpencerCS (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Academy of Athens (modern) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minerve class frigate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calvi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I revived your question Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Question for ministerial positions/cabinet members. — Petr Matas 06:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:19th-century disestablishments in France

These generic category structures are almost empty. As there are already

• Railway lines opened in 1868,
• Railway lines closed in 1871,
• Railway companies established in 1866 and
• Railway companies disestablished in 1871...

...I think this is a clear case of overcategorisation.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Establishments by country and Disestablishments by country hierarchies do exist and have a great number of pages in it, so it would be a bit far-fetched to suggest that the community's consensus goes against adding such categories to articles. For instance 1868 establishments in England alone has 27 pages in it. However, I will not add these particular cats back into the article following your edit. Place Clichy (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved answer back to where it belongs)

Moving one category level up from your example clearly indicates that this hierarchy isn't substantially populated at all (Category:1868 establishments by country). The single fact that a category hierarchy exist doesn't mean there is a consensus to randomly filling it as this hierarchy could potentially be filled with thousands of articles, rendering it useless.

With random I mean the example I gave earlier, between all the red links of Category:19th-century disestablishments in France only Category:1871 disestablishments in France and a few others are populated.

The following discussion indicates that there is no consensus or policy at all about this hierarchy: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 3#RfC on "Years by country" categories--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Sophocles (1921), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bergen-Belsen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner exchange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mayors of Thessaloniki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mehmet Pasha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ibrahim Pasha of Berat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Avlona

Pashalik of Berat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Avlona

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anne of Orléans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Anne of Orléans, Abbess of Fontevraud]] 1464–1491)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Non-Inscrits may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (FN) démissionne de son mandat de députée européenne|newspaper={{ill|fr|La République du Centre}}]|date=26 June 2014|accessdate=26 July 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I noticed that you have both Greek and German infoboxes on your profile. User:Vl.eu came onto the undeletion request forum requesting help with the article for Vicky Leandros. I left them some general information and recommended that they find a person who speaks their native language, since they have stated that their English isn't as strong as it could be. I'd like to say that they speak Greek or German since they listed the Greek and German websites for Leandros, although I'm somewhat suspecting that they're a Greek speaker. Nothing to back that up, though. In any case, would you be willing to try to converse with them in Greek and/or German to see if that's what they speak? I think that they mean well, but they would likely need to have things explained in their native language. I've tagged them with this post in the hopes that they'll come here, but you may need to go to their page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79:Thank you for notifying me. Although I have some knowledge of Greek, my writing skills in the language are quite poor. I suggest asking @Dr.K.: or @Cplakidas: who are respected and helpful users from Greece. As for German, the subject has been discussed many times at de:Diskussion:Vicky Leandros, I suggest letting a message there. Place Clichy (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! By the by, it looks like their native language is German. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, PC, just to inform you: we wouldn't translate the name of a ship in German WP, so I changed it according to our conventions. The best. -- Pitichinaccio (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Giorgos Foundas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Defense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESSO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Place Clichy, you mentioned it's unnecessary to categorize Eastern Orthodox believers both by nationality and by jurisdiction: just by nationality should be enough. In fact I completely agree with you but it's a bit complex to realize. Just deleting the categories by jurisdiction is not an option because numerous of these articles are only in the jurisdiction category and not yet in the nationality category. So ideally we'd merge the categories by jurisdiction to the categories by nationality. But then the next problem is they do not always match. This is especially problematic for the Russian and Serbian jurisdiction after the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia fell apart. If you have an idea how to solve this, please go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the Hellenic Parliament, 2015–, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evros. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the Hellenic Parliament, 2015–, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, in this instance, yes. Just dropping out of the blue "christian palestinians face the same terrible oppression as their muslim brothers" is totally biased and out of place. This sentence is not only written as out of a propaganda piece, it's dropped as a complete non sequester and its 'source' is an opinion section of Al-jazeera.... seriously?

it's also quite ironic that the sentence was shoehorned in between statements about all the genocides, massacres and legal discrimination christians face in literally every other country in the middle east other than israel, perhaps the reason why the completely vague phrase "oppression" had to be used since the real details would have been too stark a contrast with the grim reality of neighbouring countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E348:5180:5871:5D04:FC53:EA08 (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering any 'oppression' palestinians may face from Israel is totally national in nature, it has nothing to do with the article at all.

You might as well had "Saudi/Egyptian/yemeni/syrian/iraqi/lebanese/libyan/qatari/etc christians face the same government oppression as their muslim brothers". I mean that oppression is often a lot more severe than anything you'll see in palestine, and it's as valid a statement.

Are you starting to see how colossally stupid that sentence is in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E348:5180:5871:5D04:FC53:EA08 (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Place Clichy, which Greek city-states weren't in Greece? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to participate in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan. Since you had some involvement with the Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea to add former Members in the normal Non-Inscrits table. Make for former members a different table if you want :)83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. She was sacked by UKIP, as such an Independent MEP. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2015 (GMT)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the Hellenic Parliament, 2015 (September), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Magnesia and Pieria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited France Magazine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karen Taylor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Place Clichy, You were correct to note that the claim of significance is present in the article. I see now that the bar is much lower than for Wikipedia:Notability, which I feel that neither it nor its French counterpart achieves at this point, absent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I tried, unsuccessfully, to remedy this problem by searching for anything written about the foundation in English from a reliable second or third-party source. (The French article cites a Parti de gauche website as its sole citation—probably not a reliable source and certainly not an indication of "significant coverage".) This led me to infer its non-notability. I'll look for your thoughts, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Oriental Orthodox categories, the Wiki help (Interwiki links) doesen't seem to cover these interwiki links for categories, and non-European language wikis would be even more difficult. Hugo999 (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've added the hatnote twice with several months in between. Doesn't seem like anyone is biting. Why not create at least a stub yourself? Also, no need to DAB if no one even has energy to create the articles. There is only one subject by that name. Rikster2 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:HATNOTE#Non-existent articles: "Hatnotes should not contain red links to non-existent articles since hatnotes are intended to help users navigate to another article they may have intended to find. The exception is if one intends to create the linked article immediately. In that case, consider creating the new article first, before saving the addition of the hatnote." Rikster2 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Akadimia, Athens

added a link pointing to Academy of Athens

Akadimias Street

added a link pointing to Academy of Athens

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Georgios Marinos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N Deleted. It doesn't matter that it linked to extant articles on other wikis because disambiguation pages should not contain that type of interlanguage link anyway. larryv (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm from commons and i due all stuffs about Macedonia there. Can u tell me please why u remove the category Churches in the Republic of Macedonia from all macedonian churches?--R ašo 12:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raso mk: Hello! In general, when an element is placed in a subcategory, it does not need to be placed in redundant mother categories. This is explained at commons:COM:OVERCAT, for instance. As an example, if a category or image is in Category:Churches in Skopje, it does not need to be also in Category:Churches in the Republic of Macedonia, because Category:Churches in Skopje is a subcategory of Category:Churches in the Republic of Macedonia, so that would be redundant. Place Clichy (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Skopje, is not subcategory of Category:Churches in the Republic of Macedonia but Category:Churches in the Republic of Macedonia by city. I understand, but the category was to show the whole number of churches. Its possible to revert the contributins? I need the whole number. If you revert, i will create i hidden cat with another name, and then you can erase the category Churches in the Republic of Macedonia again. Thanks--R ašo 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raso mk: Hello! Undoing all changes is not easy, but you can probably use a tool like CatScan to list all subcategories, or maybe Special:Categories. If you just want the number of subcategories, you can also just expand all the arrows and copy-paste the list in Excel or LibreOffice Calc to remove duplicates. What you apparently want to do (listing all churches of the Republic of Macedonia in one place) is more a List than a category actually, so categories may not be the best tool for you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hi. I removed the category Pakistan federal departments and agencies from the above two pages, which you added. They are not departments or agencies of the Government of Pakistan. --113.203.149.37 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are trying to merge them into Category:Government-owned companies of Pakistan. Why not just remove the pages from the above two category, and add them to the Government category? Then just request speedy deletion of the above two categories? Wouldn't that be quicker? --113.203.181.51 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you restored some extremely substandard content to the encyclopaedia with this edit. In your summary you seemed confused as to why I had removed it. I did think that its total inadequacy was screamingly obvious to anyone who actually read it, but apparently not, so let me give you some reasons.

1. It's written in poor English. Note how the very first sentence has a missing definite article
2. It's formatted as a list. It should be in prose.
3. It's written mostly in the present tense. It should obviously all be in the past tense
4. It contains almost no actual encyclopaedic content. I do believe that more than three important things happened there during the 19th century.

I removed it on 4 July, but it was restored by someone for no good reason. I removed it again, and now you've put it back for no good reason. I was planning to rewrite it, but as this content is fine by you, I won't bother. You can keep the article like this and feel as proud as you like of it. 217.158.174.226 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Broletto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arona. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016
	An opportunity for you and your country to contribute to the Women in Food and Drink online editathon Faciliated by Women in Red

--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hello, Place Clichy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I used "sixth-form" in the French lycee templates because the city of Paris used "sixth-form" as a translation for lycee: http://www.webcitation.org/6Ab4dRjru (collège was translated as "high school" in reference to the British use of the word) - This translation is still used as of writing: http://next.paris.fr/english/guide-for-foreign-residents/the-necessary-steps-to-settling-in/children-families/rub_8145_stand_33668_port_18796

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Davis (buccaneer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Sutherland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information: The flag I removed was an earlier version, where the blue was far from correct, as you can see. And yes, I did take my concern to the author of the file, and they have made the current version. Actually I am not completely convinced that the new file is completely correct, either. I think the blue in the flag probably should be the same as the blue in the seal, but at least it is not conspicuously wrong now. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The recent CFD discussion that I mentioned is here. So it distinguishes congregations from bricks and mortar. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roerich Pact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).

(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.) If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-05-01, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grigoris Psarianos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ELAS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discuss in edit summaries as is happening on Template:Western Christianity footer. The template has a talk page. Please discuss there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you recently redirected Greek Catholic and Greek Catholic Church to a disambiguation page. Please can you fix the resulting mis-directed links? There are about 730 wikilinks from mainspace, but some of those can be fixed by editing a few templates such as {{Religion in Turkey}}. As the terms listed on the dab are confusingly similar, it is difficult for the layman to help and this task really needs a subject expert such as yourself. Thanks, Certes (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: It is indeed a work in progress. Most incoming links to Greek Catholic Church or a version thereof should be changed to a better target, precisely because the term is ambiguous. I shall correct them myself if others don't do it before me. In many cases it is not difficult to find the right target, and in any case much better than leaving a link to a wrong page having nothing to do with the topic, such as Slovak Catholic Eparchy of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Toronto linking to Byzantine Catholics, itself redirecting to Greek Byzantine Catholic Church, which is a Church in the country of Greece having nothing to do with Slovakia! The correct link there should be, for instance, Slovak Greek Catholic Church.

{{Religion in Turkey}} is full of links to redirects (which should be avoided per WP:BRINT) or generic terms having nothing to do with Turkey while easily-found equivalents are available (why link to Catholic or Latin Catholic instead of Catholic Church in Turkey?). It can no doubt be improved. The main link for Greek Catholic topics in Turkey seems to be Greek Catholic Apostolic Exarchate of Istanbul, although there is also a Melkite jurisdiction. You may be inspired by links found at Category:Religion in Turkey and subcategories, or link to the categories themselves when there is no dedicated article. Place Clichy (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Felice Napoleone Canevaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zorba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove players from this article, it's a non-diffusing category, so they should remain in there even if they are also in subcats. GiantSnowman 11:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed you have been removing valid categories from articles, then tagging the categories for deletion. That is incredibly bad form. Please do not do that. GiantSnowman 12:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this list category duplicates content that is found elsewhere. See: "List of Catholic dioceses by alphabetical or List of Catholic dioceses by Structure". Having a category for Catholic lists is fine, but that already exists. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benkenobi18: If you find duplicate categories, I suggest nominating them for merger at WP:CFD. I can't find duplicate categories with the names you suggested though, care to provide a link? Categories and lists are different things, they are not duplicates of one another. See WP:Categories vs lists. All I saw was you removing List of dioceses in... articles from categories which have the word Lists in the name, and at first sight this seems wrong. List articles should be placed somewhere in the Category:Lists structure, and Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses, which you emptied, is a valid intersection. Place Clichy (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category had eight entries in it. Six of them were diocesan articles that were at the wrong level, which should be in the diocesan cats where I moved them. That leaves two. The one you readded and one other. I think that "Catholic-church related lists" is a better list category for those two rather than a 'list of Catholic diocese lists". also, please note that the Category, "lists of Catholic dioceses in a country" already contains the individual lists for all the catholic countries, making this category a duplicate of the content there. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Roman_Catholic_dioceses_by_country.

OK, you can indeed argue that you feel that Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses by country is sufficient and that Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses is "unneeded overcategorization". However, there are many cases when a perfectly valid category has most of its content within a by-country subcategory. Here, I see the following content eligible for the root category rather than the by-country category: List of Catholic dioceses (structured view), List of Catholic dioceses (alphabetical), List of Catholic dioceses in Europe, List of Catholic dioceses in the Balkans, Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses in countries by name etc. Anyway, what is or is not overcategorization is defined by guidelines established by consensus rather than just personal opinion, and if you believe that consensus is against having a category gathering diocese lists, I invite you to nominate the category at WP:CFD rather than emptying or blanking it out of process. Please follow the discussion at the category talk page whre it will be better located. Place Clichy (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diocese of Nandyal of the Church of South India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atmakur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This has been a guideline on our English Wikipedia for at least 10 years, and certainly since I've been an admin (8 years). Please revert yourself. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BlackcurrantTea. I clicked on your contributions out of curiosity, and I noticed you're marking quite a few of your edits as minor, yet the ones I looked at aren't actually minor. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

It's an understandable mistake, and one I've made myself. The Wikipedia definition of minor is different to what most of us expect. I've reviewed Help:Minor edit many times, trying to decide if the changes I was making were minor. It helped me to think of a minor edit as a change that a reader is not that likely to notice (unless it's reverting obvious vandalism: this also counts as minor). Maybe it fixes a typo, or corrects the format of a reference without adding any new information. It doesn't change or add anything very noticeable to the page, and other editors are unlikely to dispute it.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, you can reply to me here; I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist for a bit. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BlackcurrantTea. Indeed what is a minor or a major edit can be very debatable. That is most especially true in the part that other editors are unlikely to dispute it, as as editors may dispute such things as the placing of a comma, sometimes rightfully so. In many years editing Wikipedia, I don't remember being challenged for misuse of the minor tag, although I have most certainly used it where I could not have, and the other way around.

I have not reviewed all your links (I am on a mobile phone right now which does not make it easy). However looking at 1 I see that I did only some copy editing, wikifying and link correction, and did not add or remove any information. So that's definitely a minor edit imho, and one where I see little probable room for contestation in all possible good faith. I welcome the debate though. Place Clichy (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that first diff - I was looking at the difference in wikicode, which makes it look like rather more of a change. However in the second diff you added a reference and a noticeable amount of text. In the third, you changed 'Byzantine' to 'Greek', changed section headings, added a gallery section and moved images into it, and removed half the entries from the 'see also' section. In the fourth, you changed the target of a redirect. In the fifth, you changed 'authored by' to 'attributed to' and added three references and a note.

To make up for the first diff, I'll add this navbox change; this change to a disambiguation page; and this change to an article. I don't see any of those as minor. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel really ashamed of any of those edits, and their content seems pretty unlikely to be found controversial (to the extent that you can be sure in advance that no other editor will think otherwise). I hope there was no harm done. However you may be right that for some edits I had started with some pretty uncontroversial maintenance work for which I had ticked the minor box, but then went on to do bigger changes to the article which should not have been marked as minor. In 2, I see that I had started by updating a reference for figures already in the article and correcting typos etc. but then added more content esp. a (sourced and referenced) list of patriarchal vicars, which is indeed a major edit. In other cases there may be room for more discussion or interpretation as to what is minor uncontroversial maintenance, such as replacing an obviously wrong redirect target, or replacing a rarely-used or weird term by what is already considered consensual and a standard in the article's context as is the case for 'Byzantine Catholic' vs. 'Greek Catholic'. Thank you for your suggestion though. Like all of us, I'm not always right and I probably often make mistakes. I will try and be more careful in the future. Place Clichy (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting you should be ashamed of any of the edits - indeed, I appreciate your attention to detail and references - simply that they're not minor edits. Thank you for considering this, and for your thoughtful replies. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vassilis Rapanos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academy of Athens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Place Clichy! I have started some articles about the Ottoman Empire in English. I'm wondering if you're interested in writing French versions of some of them, as French was the main foreign language in the late (post-Tanzimat) Ottoman Empire. Egypt and Greece also used French at the turn of the 20th Century.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rosa Plaveva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy,

You tagged this category for speedy renaming and now it is empty. Can you follow through with it? I don't know the status of the rename, whether it was opposed or is now a discussion at CfD. If it won't be renamed, perhaps you could remove the tagging. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: My unopposed speedy nomination was actually for the merger of 2 categories in favour of a 3rd one, to mirror a merge at the article level which took effect, following discussion, in 2009. In effect, merging the now-empty category without leaving a redirect or plainly deleting it made little different, as content had been moved to the new target. In the meantime, an administrator deleted the empty category while leaving a mention of the new one in the edit summary. Things are therefore all good now. Place Clichy (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protestant Federation of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please review WP:Minor edit. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this advice. Is there any specific edit you would be referring to or be unhappy with? I usually try to keep what is written on this page in mind in my editing, including the mention at the top that this is an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and customs. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Cheers, Place Clichy (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the one I noticed was this edit. I guess some argument could be made for all talk page contributions being minor, but it's at the least unorthodox. Sdkb (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman Catholic Church" correctly refers to the whole of the "Catholic Church" in communion with the Pope. The "Western Catholic" church is correctly called the "Latin Catholic Church", not the "Roman Catholic Church". Unfortunately even the Latin Catholic Church article makes this common mistake. Afterwriting (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Afterwriting: Nobody really ever says "Latin Catholic", it's just "Latin", as in the Latin Church or the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. However, the use of Roman Catholic to refer to Roman-rite/Latin/Western Catholics as differentiated from Eastern Catholics is quite prevalent, see for instance Roman Catholic (term) § "Roman Catholic" and "Western" or "Latin Catholic". I guess it really depends from where you speak. From my experience I'd say that people who use Roman Catholic in the first sense (the wider Catholic Church) come from contexts that are either not Catholic or influenced by Protestantism, or are not even aware of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, whereas people who use Roman Catholic in the second sense are more often Catholics themselves or from Catholic countries. That's personal perception, not educated opinion though. Any way both uses are correct and depend on context. IF you wish to discuss the matter more, I think that Talk:Catholic Church is the best venue. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "Latin Church" is more common than "Latin Catholic Church" (though this is arguably more correct). But I don't agree that both uses of "Roman Catholic Church" are strictly correct, although I realise that many people refer to only the Latin Church as being "Roman Catholic". One thing I find strange but interesting is that many Latin Catholics want to reject the term "Roman Catholic" altogether whilst many Eastern Catholics use it (mistakenly I believe) to refer to the Latin Church. This matter has been discussed considerably in the past at the Catholic Church talk page and it was generally agreed back then that "Roman Catholic" correctly referred to the whole church and not just the Western church (which is why the opening sentence is as it is). Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both uses are correct in English. However you have to acknowledge that the use of "Roman Catholic" for the entire Church comes from the Church of England and was initially intended as pejorative, which may be a good explanation why you will find Catholics who show reluctance to it. Acceptance of these terms have evolved with times, and you would not put the same connotation in a 21st-century text than in a 17th-century one, both for Catholic and Roman Catholic, both from an Anglican or a Catholic writer. Place Clichy (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about your comments the other day about Syrian, Turkish, and Bulgarian Jews not being Sephardi. While I don't agree that most Syrians or Turks aren't Sephardi (not sure about Bulgarians), it does raise an interesting question. I wonder if these categories need to be reconsidered. Maybe being Ashkenazi/Mizrahi/Sephardi/etc. should be delinked from nationality categories. Jews from a particular nation may be Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or something else. Category:Hungarian Jews are classified as "Ashkenazi", but anecdotally, my Hungarian-Jewish friends are mostly Sephardi. Category:Dutch Jews are categorized with both Ashkenazi and Sephardi categories. Might it be more appropriate to have subcats for, say, Category:Dutch Sephardi Jews and Category:Dutch Ashkenazi Jews? Would it be more appropriate to have the categories as Category:Dutch people of Sephardi descent, etc.? I'm just not sure how useful it is to assume that an individual Jew or group of Jews is Ashkenazi/Sephardi/etc. based upon what country they are from. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lowercasing Christology. Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: You are correct, it seems indeed that Christology and Christological are usually capitalized in English. Place Clichy (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Georgian Catholic Church. Since you had some involvement with the Georgian Catholic Church redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Wikiacc (¶) 19:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've added several American territories and the capital to "[x] by state" categories but Washington, D.C. is not a state. Please see U. S. state and let me know if you have any questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I know that Washington D.C. is not a state, thank you very much. This is why I used a + sort key, so that it is not listed among the states but presented separately, together with other non-state entities. Indeed, when US categories are diffused geographically but the category is called "by state" rather than something more generic such as "by location", "by place", "by first-level subdivision", "by state or territory" etc., I believe that subcategories for Washington D.C. and other territories are still expected to be found in the geographical category rather than outside of it. In the case at hand, your (imho too quick) reverts [3] [4] [5] left Category:American activists in a very poor state, with 6 different sort keys used for out-of-sequence subcategories: , :, !, > and 2 for geography, - and +. Clearly, in terms of navigation, this cannot be considered an ideal situation. If you think that the solution to this issue is to rename every American "by state" category to "by state or territory", I would gladly support this change. Please see WP:Sorting and let me know if you have any questions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Place Clichy, Since Washington, D. C. is a city, it would be appropriate for "[x] by city" categories but not by state. I'd be happy to rename all of those but that's a big undertaking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again. You're doing this now with territories. Territories and the federal district are not states. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺ M☯ 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most states were once territories. It is completely unpractical to keep content relative to territories separate from that of states. It goes against the spirit of WP:DIFFUSE. That's why many of these categories use "by state or territory". But for those who are not, a non-alphabetical sort key is a perfect way to separate them. Place Clichy (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put territories in "by state" categories and don't put Washington, D. C. in "by state" or "by state or territory" categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that categories are only tools aimed at helping navigation, above all other considerations. It certainly helps to put all content relative to states, territories and Washington D.C. in the same place. Frankly, people that care about the subject enough to notice are already aware that D.C. is not a state, and therefore will not be misled. So sorry, but I don't think that a rigid reading of what is a state or a territory and what isn't helps at all here. Place Clichy (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. Don't put inaccuracies into categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no inaccuracy when a non-alphabetic sort key is used (such as +), explicitly signalling that there's a difference in the membership. Plus if you want to be rigid, places like Oklahoma, Hawaii, or Alaska were territories for quite a long time before they became states, so there's already plenty of "territory" material in your precious "by state" categories. Flexibility is encouraged when editing Wikipedia when it allows to improve things, see WP:IAR and WP:5P5. If you want to leave it at that, let's agree to disagree. Place Clichy (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you don't put non-states in "x by state" categories, I'm good. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Please stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular day, I noticed that you supported a merge for "Members of the United States Congress of XXX descent" to "American people of XXX descent". For some of those discussions, however, the upmerge target that the nom suggested was for "American politicians of XXX descent" rather than the "people" cat. I'm referring specifically to the Taiwanese and Korean CFD discussions, who actually have "American politicians" categories with nontrivial numbers of members. I would like to confirm whether your supported target in those two instances are for the "American people" cats or the "American politicians" cats; I'd rather not make assumptions about what you think. Let me know as soon as you can! bibliomaniac15 02:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: Thanks for spotting that out! Answered there. Place Clichy (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Purple wedge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Purple wedge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't get your rationale. Can you elaborate pls? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged:

1. What the Romans called Asia does not refer to what we call the continent of Asia today, or what is understood e.g. as the scope of Category:Former countries in Asia. It was restricted to what we today call the Middle East, and even in the strict sense a smaller part of it, Asia Minor, as in Asia (Roman Province). See also Ancient Near East § The concept of the Near East. I therefore don't see why you say that Noet all are in the Middel East.
2. I found Category:Former countries in the Middle East and Category:Former countries in Western Asia to be extremely crowded with redundant content and subcategories which could better be moved to more precise categories, per WP:SUBCAT. Category:Roman provinces in Asia is precisely one such category where we can sort this content a bit, and there is little need to have the likes of Bithynia and Pontus or Lycia et Pamphylia in these categories. After all, they were not even countries but Roman provinces.

Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the difference between Asia the Roman province and Asia the continent. My problem is that a lesser geographic area (a part of a continent) cannot be a child of a greater geographic area (i.e. the entire continent). Since the category in question covers the entire continent of Asia in its scope, then how can it be a child of just the Middle East? I think that your problem is with the scope of the current category rather than its categorical parentage. Maybe a CFD to re-define its scope to just the Near East or the Middle East? But since we already have Roman Levant and Anatolia categories, I don't think that that would add much valye. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, the scope of a category called Roman provinces in Asia is restricted to the Middle East. It doesn't near renaming. If you wish to have this category renamed just to underline the fact that the Romans never went further in Asia, why not, but frankly I would find this would be overkill. I therefore see no problem at all in having the category with its current name parented to Middle or Near East categories. Place Clichy (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not invest too much work in that category - it is probably doomed. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_22#Category:Climate_change_denialists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling: Thank you for your concern for my time and energy. I am aware of the discussion, and I sincerely hope that the community will reach a coherent decision. I'm not sure what you suggest I do differently, though. Place Clichy (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until the question is decided one way or the other. But since you were already aware of the discussion, I guess you know what you are doing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with pipes and redirects. See, e.g. MOS:DABPIPE and the sections below. There's a particular problem in linking to the geographical areas covered by the WGSRPD codes, since their definition may not correspond exactly to the precise definition used in the nearest Wikipedia article. Leaving a redirect allows for an easier change if a better article becomes available.

Please read Wikipedia:PLANTS/WGSRPD and follow its advice. For example, I cannot find a plant that is endemic to Indian Punjab, so there is no need for the category Category:Flora of Punjab, India. The ridiculously long list of distribution categories at Dillenia pentagyna is against guidelines, and should be reduced to a few higher level categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, distribution categories are only for where the plant is native, not introduced.

• Use a reliable source that uses the WGSRPD, e.g. follow the POWO link in the taxonbar.
• Reduce cases where a plant is native in most subcategories of a larger category to the larger one, e.g. use Category:Flora of the Indian subcontinent rather than many categories for its regions.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: answered your first point on the article talk page.

About the Punjab category, I agree that the ridiculously long list of distribution categories at Dillenia pentagyna is against guidelines at WP:PLANTS/Using the WGSRPD. However I am not the author of this article, I merely corrected ridiculously empty and orphan Category:Flora of Punjab by a category which I found better formatted and scoped.

Note that the WGSRPD zone defined as L4, IND-PU, "Punjab" is a part of upper-level L3 "India", and that Pakistan is a different L3 zone, as illustrated on the maps to the right. WGSRPD therefore unambiguously refers to Punjab, India. This article is a better link for the "Article link" column in List of codes used in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, and Category:Flora of Punjab, India is a better category. Place Clichy (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that if the category is needed, then "Flora of Punjab, India" is a better name. I don't dispute this. But the category is only needed if there are plants endemic to this area or restricted to very few areas of which this is one. Are there such plants? If not, the category is not necessary. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Once again I did not add or look for plants endemic to this area, I already found one already categorized as such. I merely corrected a category poorly named and poorly formatted by a better one, and I do not see how this was a bad edit. You now emptied the category, and were right to do so in the absence of other content. Place Clichy (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already agreed with you re the name, but I had thought that you would have considered whether the category was actually needed, and that you must have decided that it was – why bother to re-name an unnecessary category, I thought. Sorry for making the wrong assumption. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Category:Flora of Altai (region), you added Category:Geography of Altai Krai and Category:Geography of the Altai Republic. There are major problems in how to categorize geographical areas, in my experience, and this may be the best solution. However, WP:SUBCAT says "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." But "Flora of Altai Krai + Altai Republic" is not a subcategory of either "Geography of Altai Krai" or "Geography of the Altai Republic". In terms of geography, the reverse is true; in terms of topic (flora vs. geography), there's no "is-a" relationship. Anyway, I leave this to your judgement. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have placed this category in Natural history of Altai Krai/Republic/region or Environment of Altai Krai/Republic/region of I had found such a category, as I have seen this structure frequently used in other flora and biota categories. However, in the absence of such categories, placing the flora directly in the Geography of.. parent seems to be a good solution, not excluding a later creation of the intermediate categories. Place Clichy (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; however, they are not "parents". "Altai (region)" is the parent of both "Altai Krai" and "Altai Republic". A valid parent would be something like "Biogeography of Siberia" or some other area that includes both Altai Krai and Altai Republic. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They can and should be given to editors without taking into account their experience/seniority or the quality of their edits. Without having had an alert or being involved in appropriate discussions, an editor is not subject to sanctions, and no one should be immune. I self-alert so I'm subject to all of them. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the generic nature that I don't get, then. In all collaborative spirit, is there any specific edit or action I should do differently? Place Clichy (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm telling you what you already know. To see how common it is, one can search Ds/log. For example, to search for alerts given on your user talk page, I said https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Place_Clichy&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert. I did that for the 15 people who participated in the Category:Climate change denialists CfD, and found that only two (you and I) have received alerts re climate change in the last year. So, as Doug Weller explained, "It's for anyone who edits in the area" -- but only a few receive it. Incidentally some of the other CfD participants might have avoided receiving it if, like Doug Weller, they have used a Ds/aware notice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Grand Order of Water Rats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fred Miller, Donald Ross, Ian Richards, Arthur Scott, John Sharman and Keith Simmons

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s disestablishments in All-Palestine (Gaza) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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

A tag has been placed on Category:1959 in All-Palestine (Gaza) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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

Hi, you may want to react on the nomination of a large number of Kiev categories at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just overwrite an edit of yours on the speedies? Sorry if so - I don't trust the new tool. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm grateful that you're cleaning tags and making sure that they're warranted, but I wanted to mention to you that edit summaries like this diff are making a pretty objectional assumption. The page had the tag because she does migration studies, social inclusion work, and especially Afro-German studies, she's an advocate with affiliation groups for Black people in Germany, and she's been specifically described as a "migrant woman". I didn't just look at her face and decide she looks African, and it's pretty brutal -- and not in the spirit of WP:AGF -- to assume that's what I did. I recognise the merits of the change, and it would have been a totally fine edit and edit summary if you had just left out "The "face test" is not enough". - Astrophobe (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrophobe: hello and thanks for your message. Let me reassure you that there was indeed absolutely no assumption on my part as to the quality or the reasons that made you add this article to the category, despite my edit summary being maybe a bit blunt. To be frank I did not even look up which editor placed this category. As I am sure you understood, I was only checking if this article was filling the criteria for ethnicity and descent categories on a biographical article, which are a pretty high standard per guideline WP:EGRS, and even stricter for biographies of living people per WP:BLPCAT policy: it is mandatory to have reliable sources confirming that the subject of the article self-identifies with an ethnicity or descent before adding the biographical article to the category. Also, purely racial categories are strongly discouraged (see WP:ETHNICRACECAT) and for this reason categories about "African descent" are often considered to be valid only as container categories for more specific descent categories (see for instance this community discussion). Too often unfortunately, people will assume a specific ethnicity or descent based on the name of a person, or what their face "looks like", rather than what reliable sources say. In this case, you are correct that the topic of migration, and the identity of Afro-Germans and other mixed-background in Germany, are a topic of study for Hadija Haruna-Oelker. However I see no statement in the article about her self-identification, or a specific ascendancy relating to any country in Africa, which means that the article is not currently eligible for this category. My apologies again for the bluntness of my message, I have no doubt that your edit was in good faith. Place Clichy (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the thoughtful response, I really appreciate it. And I completely agree with you about the merits of the change. I made sure that I'm familiar with all of those policies, and I'll be more careful with that type of category in the future! I have extremely mixed feelings about racial and gender categories and I'm definitely not deeply invested in applying as many of them as possible, and I totally get the need to be very strict with making sure they're always correct and reliably cited. Thanks again! :) - Astrophobe (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Churches are both buildings and organizations. Please stop removing churches (and mosques, synagogues etc) from religious organization categories (which is out-of-process emptying). Category:Religious organizations based in the United States Virgin Islands was created by @Rathfelder: along with many of the others, so I am not alone in this view. In any case, cfd is the forum for deleting categories. 17:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC) - unsigned by Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Occuli there is an open discussion to clarify policy on this - currently it is not clear that this should not be done. Place Clichy has opposed the draft. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I listed some more CFDs at talk:Kyiv#Related category renaming. May as well get your comments in now. Cheers. —Michael Z. 02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Category:Kyiv Oblast and 25 subcategories took a full seven weeks to move, despite there being no opposition, no controversy, and no substantive points raised about it. —Michael Z. 04:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy,

When you tag a page for any kind of deletion, please post a notice on the page creator's talk page informing them of the tagging. If you use Twinkle, this will happen automatically once you set up your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I would usually do when it is appropriate. That's probably an oversight. Place Clichy (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verbund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TIWAG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American librarians of Korean descent has been nominated for merging. 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. User:Namiba 15:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About this, note that Jinder Mahal is not from Punjab, India but belongs to the Punjabi ethnicity. That's why we need this category. Ethnicty and being from a certain region is not the same. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: thanks, I saw your edit and I agree completely that they are not the same. However the notion that Mahal belongs to the Punjabi ethnicity is already conveyed by the Canadian people of Punjabi descent category. Per our guideline on non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, not every intersection of ethnicity and occupation is worth a specific category. I therefore removed the Punjabi professional wrestlers category because I think it does not meet the conditions set in this guideline. Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this, and I'm OK with it. I failed to notice Canadian people of Punjabi descent category. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy,

Just a reminder that anytime you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AfD/CfD/TfD/etc), you should post a notice on the talk page of the page creator informing them that the page has been tagged for deletion. Otherwise, a page they created can be deleted and they have no idea what has happened! There are times when they can easily correct whatever problems exist that cause the page to be tagged.

The process is made easy when you use Twinkle which automatically posts a talk page notice whenever you tag a page for deletion once you set up your Twinkle Preferences. You can see Twinkle-initiated messages (above) which I have posted to your own talk page when a page you created has been tagged for deletion. I encourage you to use it. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that I have already posted a notice about this issue some time ago on your talk page. Consider this a second reminder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hello! Thanks for the reminder. I truly believe that I do post such notification messages every time I place such a tag. Yesterday I nominated several dozens of categories at CfD (not that I am especially proud of it) and I am pretty confident that I posted notifications for all of them, including to banned or vanished users. In fact, I even received comments that I posted too many notifications. However, of course, I may sometimes miss one, or eventually start the message in a browser tab that I did not then go back to (I have done that sometimes). Please consider this a honest mistake. Unless there is something more precise that you wish to raise. Many thanks for all the energy and work you put youself to category maintenance, and happy editing! Place Clichy (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you just participated in a similar discussion we had (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent). The fact that you appear to have ignored the summary of scholarly sources I have compiled that supports the topic’s existence as well as copy-pasted your replies you used on at least two previous CFD’s makes it hard for me to WP:AGF. I simply ask that if you want to delete my hard work, you do so with a more well-through our rationale. Thanks.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch with Template:Ship name format/doc. I've updated things a bit, but you'll have to edit the page to see it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Have a look here, please. What is to be done? — Biruitorul ^Talk 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found some copies of publications like Servet-i Funun on SALT Research and am making copies of them on archive.is. I'm hoping this helps preserve the sources for Wikipedian use WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Best. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do is increase the Republic of China instead of increasing China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:5DD:F5EB:0:0:5E:C4F9 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by that. I guess this is a reference to your edits at Category:Ambassadors to Taiwan. However I think that neither me not Wikipedia have the power to do what you suggest. Place Clichy (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can touch when you understand what you are doing, but I don’t think you know what you are doing. Most people don't understand the difference between PRC, ROC and ROC (-1949), especially when you use CHINA. This is an extremely sensitive issue in Taiwan, especially the KMT political party, which often discusses this matter. This is also one of the main reasons why KMT’s support in Taiwan has been declining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:5dd:f5eb::5e:c4f9 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Ambassadors to Taiwan#Ambassadors to the Republic of China. Place Clichy (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place_Clichy,

You changed a template (or added a template) that I think caused several Austrian and Austro-Hungarian airplane categories to become empty. You can see them in the third column of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. If they are still empty in 7 days, they will be deleted. I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't intend to empty them. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: thanks; indeed I changed some templates to harmonize usage between Austrian and Austro-Hungarian aircraft categories that were a mess with a lot of duplicate and redundant categories. I think I checked everything so that no information is lost and no content is orphaned with the changes, so there should be no issue in deleting the empty duplicate categories that are no longer needed. Place Clichy (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bilateral sports relations of Argentina 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Place Clichy,

You tagged this empty category as a speedy rename but it is not listed for a speedy rename at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. You also tagged another empty category, Category:Protestant church buildings in United Kingdom, for a speedy rename but since it is empty and apparently a copy of Category:Protestant church buildings in the United Kingdom, I'm not sure why you didn't tag it for speedy deletion. Thank you.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I did submit Category:Athens Prefecture for speedy deletion/upmerge (which comes down to the same thing) per WP:C2F as at that time it contained only the eponymous article; this was processed by User:Fayenatic london (ping) but deletion somehow got missed. As for Category:Protestant church buildings in United Kingdom, it is a mistake I created, so WP:C2E seemed more appropriate than WP:C1. In that case you are directed to nominate the article at WP:CFD/S and tag the article with {{cfr-speedy}}, but that template produces a kinda weird output when there is no target, despite the fact that speedy criteria such as WP:C2A, WP:C2E and WP:C2F can result in mere deletion with no renaming target to be specified. Place Clichy (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, it must have been at that point that I realised the page contents (a commons category link) also wanted merging to the lead articles. I did those merges, and forgot to come back and delete that one. Now done.

For C2F and other cases of speedy merging, please use {{cfm-speedy}} rather than cfr-speedy. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I had missed that cfm template, thank you. There could be a cfd-speedy template too, for some C2E cases and maybe C2A. Place Clichy (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you seem to have been making changes to Austrian and Austro-Hungarian aircraft categories and emptying valid categories like Category:Austrian civil aircraft after they have been correctly used. A change to Template:Airnd seems to have made a mess of everything otherwise we could just revert to the proper categories. This is confusing members of the WP:AIRCRAFT who are trying to do the right thing but you keep reverting and emptying the categories. Would appreciate if you could explain what you are trying to do on the aircraft project talk page so we can move forward rather then continuing emptying categories and potential edit warring, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1803 establishments in Ireland 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1815 disestablishments in Ireland 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1790s establishments in the Republic of Venice 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Bacall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gangster Squad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin McCarthy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You removed Category:Geography of Israel from Category:Geography by states with limited recognition with a comment: Israel is not usually classified among states with limited recognition. But I see that User:Selfstudier added the category to the article about Israel. Also Israel is listed in a list of states with limited recognition. --Olchug (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olchug: response in several points:

1. Israel is mentioned at list of states with limited recognition in a section called UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state which also includes PR China, North Korea, South Korea or Armenia. These UN member states all enjoy near-universal recognition but do have some outstanding diplomatic disputes.
2. Not suprisingly, the Israel article can be subject of much disputed editing. I would not take a single edit there as basis for policy.
3. There is currently no other child of Categories by states with limited recognition which includes an Israeli category, or a category for China, Armenia or similar states. If you intend to add them there, then this should be done for all such categories for all such countries, not just one. However, such a drastic change would probably be better accepted if you first started a discussion. I suggest WT:WikiProject Categories for the location of this discussion, with notices at e.g. WT:WikiProject Countries, WT:WikiProject Israel, Talk:Israel and Category talk:Categories by states with limited recognition.

Place Clichy (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, than you for a clear answer. Should they then be also removed from Category:Wikipedia categories named after states with limited recognition? Olchug (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. I see that they were added in this category relatively recently (15 February 2022), and I do not think that this edit is consensual. Place Clichy (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did all the categories except Category:Israel, it is protected. Can you do it too? Olchug (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. On what basis are places being included in the category, one cannot just arbitrarily say, this one is in and that one is out?

If one wants to take them all out and delete the category then that can be discussed. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If you want to give the label of "states with limited recognition" to China, South Korea, Israel etc. then you need to provide reliable sources which support that this label is defining, rather than the other way around. Frankly, I've sometimes seen the expression partial recognition applied to such cases, but certainly not limited recognition which would put them on par with Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus, whose recognition status cannot be compared in all good faith to that of Israel or PR China. Place Clichy (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page List of states with limited recognition, that's the basis for the category, all the states that are in it have consensus of WP editors to be in the list. As I said, if one want to make up new definitions ("partial", "generally" etc etc) then either those new definitions need to be explained (how many recognitions is partial?) or the category is not serving a purpose and should be deleted.Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might talk to @Heanor:, they recently attempted something here, deleting all entries to the current list and essayed a new cat Unrecognized or partly unrecognized states but then backtracked on that. I don't object to the cat being deleted per se, I would like to know whether the list (entries) should then be contained in some other cat besides the generic Lists of Countries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources and WP:Defining guidelines are the only way to go. The fact that one single country has a diplomatic dispute with Cyprus or Armenia does not change much to the status of these countries as widely recognized members of the international community and a U.N. member states. Granted, PR China and Israel have a little more countries withholding recognition, but they are still unambiguously and overwhelingly recognized as countries and U.N. member states. These diplomatic disputes are very useful to mention and explain in detail in List of states with limited recognition, however this article has very clear separate lists for very different cases that are not comparable at all. You cannot use the existence of this article (which is probably poorly named) to justify placing Israel, Cyprus et al. in limited recognition categories that are primarily aimed at Transnistria, South Ossetia and the like. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In fact, I can see that most of your recent edit seems to revolve around the Israel article and Israeli-Palestinian topics (which is a very noble topic), and I have the feeling that trying to add out-of-place limited recognition categories to all these countries is just a way to take a hit at your favourite target, which is strongly discouraged in the following guideline: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The WP:CLNT is also worth mentioning here: what is good for a list is not good for a category, for many reasons. Place Clichy (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel Palestine thing is just a diversion on your part, I'm afraid, the reason that both these places have limited recognition is because of the conflict between them and yet you want to say that it is not defining only for one of them. Therefore any disruption on that front is your cross to bear not mine.

As for sourcing, again the sin is your own..eg "widely"..without a definition and most of the reply above is just a mess of OR, this sort of random definition making has led to years of argument on the country lists.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please just start a discussion at the venue suggested above about whether categories about topics in these countries (not just Israel) deserve to be placed in limited recognition categories. Discussion on this user talk page has reached its ultimate point, it seems. I also note that most of these limited recognition were quite recently renamed from unrecognized or largely unrecognized states (example); the previous title was probably better in fact, as less ambiguous. Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was Heanor who did that also very recently. I agree that we have nothing further to discuss at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim that the lack of recognition for Israel is not "defining", then I have removed Palestine from the cat on the same basis. I would not be surprised if others also claim that x or y state of those that remain are also not defined by recognition. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now even the staunchest supporter of Palestinian statehood would not agree that, as of today, the state-level recognition of the State of Palestine is on par with that of Israel. Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one making up the definitions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider the merits of Israel and Palestine separately. Especially so in terms of international recognition. It is not because something can be said about one that it becomes necessarily true for the other, as you implied in this edit summary, using a misread Wikipedia article as a source. Place Clichy (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"limited recognition" applies when a state lacks recognition by even just one UN member state precisely because no-one wants to consider every case separately. Trying to split it up (with partly, widely, generally and all the rest) just leads to endless argument (look at Kosovo for example). Btw, in terms of number of recognitions, I and P are not that dissimilar, 20 or so difference in number. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That ("even just one UN member state") is you personal opinion. Is it shared by reliable sources? The difference between Israel and the State of Palestine is also that one is a UN member-state while the other is not (OK, it is an observer, but so is the Order of Malta) and that Palestine is also only a de jure state with a lack of actual control on its territory, especialy in terms of borders and security, which are key components of international recognition of statehood. You can't just mirror one situation to the other. Place Clichy (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion for the list, not my personal opinion. Recognition and UN status are two different things, the list is about recognition. Same as List of sovereign states is about sovereignty, not recognition (I and P are both in the list).

Also please see my query to Olchug on his talk page re the flag. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are using a Wikipedia list page as if it was a source. There are 2 faults in this reasoning: 1°) this list is clearly split into several cases which are not comparable at all (that of UN member states with some outstanding diplomatic disputes, and that of fledgling de facto or proto-states fighting for recognition) and 2°) what is good for a list is not automatically good for a category, the differences between the two being clearly explained in the WP:CLNT guideline. Among other differences, a list article allows for nuance, whether a category inclusion does not. Anyway, for the last time, please bring this content discussion to a community page and out of my user page. Place Clichy (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, next time try reading the article before making false allegations. You could also try AGF. Bye now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that both Heanor and Olchug are now blocked as socks.Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest solution would appear to be to change everything from limited recognition to "Other states" following the structure in List of sovereign states (of which List of states with limited recognition is a subset). Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is a good idea. Once again you are using a Wikipedia list as reference point. Other states seems like a weird definition. If you wish to launch a discussion about the scope of these categories, Unrecognized or largely unrecognized countries, which was used in the past, could be a solution. Place Clichy (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be a "definition" made up by WP editors in the past, "Other states" is defined in the present as States not in the UN system per the sov states page.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]