If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{
Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{
Talkback|Fayenatic london}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
This user talk page might be
watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
A
request for comment is in progress to determine whether the
administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at
WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
I can also see that the article has also moved to the new name (
Otello Corporation), but the only source given to that effect is a meeting that decided to do. There is no indication that the Norwegian government authorized doing that. And the company website indicates that such a name change has not happened yet. (www.operasoftware.com) Last but not least, there were news about name change and ownership change of this company in 2016. It didn't happen. The Norwegian goverment didn't approve.
I note that the 21 Dec 2017 news item on the company website is in the name of Otello Corporation, even though the rest of the site has not yet been re-branded.
http://www.operasoftware.com/company/investors
The source that you added seems to be sheding some light on the matter. "Opera ASA" has changed name, but "Opera Software AS" has not. Direct quote:
The name changes does not affect Opera Software AS or the Opera and Opera Mini internet browsers, all of which Otello sold in 2016, Opera Software AS said in a separate statement.
Hence, the official website link at the bottom of
Otello Corporation is wrong.
Honestly, it came as a big surprise to me. To this date I didn't know we had such different entities as "Opera Software AS" and "Opera ASA", with their difference being a final "A".
P.S. Actually, if you think about, it makes sense. The name change has been done so that the holding company parts with the last remnant of its connection to the Opera browser, which is the title. —
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If I understand correctly, the controversy is that you are not convinced that the company has changed its name but I have a reliable source that says that they have. I would suspect that the branding that the company uses may have not changed and colloquially, many may still refer to the company as "Opera" just like how Google, Inc. was re-incoporated as "Alphabet" and now there is a subcompany called "Google" but there is still a higher-up parent company that was renamed. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually, I am now quite convinced; Fayenatic london's source is quite definitive on the matter: From the two companies with almost identical names, the first, "Opera Software AS" has not changed name, while the holding company "Opera ASA", which now has nothing to do with Opera whatsoever, has changed its name to Otello. Unfortunately, the article representation of the subject matter is convoluted, confounded, conflated and confused. (Take your pick. 😏) Please study messages above in full and carefully. I elaborated why.
This does not address yet the "convoluted, confounded, conflated and confused" treatment of the topic matter in the article. Can someone attend to that? Tx. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
09:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the link! I had no idea that that page existed. Before
WP:CFDAC was automated, I had started a manual version of that at the end of the list of daily logs. I've now added a link to it from CFDW.
There was a huge backlog of unclosed CfDs until a few days ago, when I began blitz and closed ~150 of them. We now have only 34 due for closure, and it's be lovely to at least clear the 6 which have been open for over a month. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Per closing Admin's request, I moved some articles to the approved category. I see that you've reverted some movements. Have I mis-understood the criteria for inclusion?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi, I did some recategorising, but was only aware of reverting you once, and did it in a way to provide an alert for you – intending to be helpful.
@
Jax 0677: My view of list articles is that it is sufficient for the key fact to be cited in the linked article. In this case we were talking about inclusion of the
Tochigi patricide case, and I removed it from the list.
An RfC
has closed with a consensus that candidates at
WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a
Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors
responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using
Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A
tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by
automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
has enacted a change to the
discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a
standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (
Help!)
12:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
May I ask, was there a discussion that led you to use LinkIfCatExists in templates such as these? I find the blue links hardly visible in contrast to the black non-links. Blue and red links were clearer to see.
Also, now that swathes of small categories are being deleted as unhelpful for navigation, and tables of links can be suppressed where appropriate, is it not all right to keep red links for the ones that are not deprecated/deleted? –
FayenaticLondon23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: No discussion before I created {{LinkCatIfExists}}. I was prompted to do it when I discovered that at least one of the cleanup lists was being swamped by these redlinks. The fact that {{LinkCatIfExists}} is now transcluded by
195,000 pages, most of them using it multiple times, gives an idea of the scale of the problem.
When I looked for guidance, I found
WP:EXISTING. Admittedly it's talking about redlinked articles rather than categories, but I think the spirit is clear: don't use navboxes to create a forest of redlinks. There is an exception for "navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data", but I don't think we should expect by-year cats to be a full set.
I do agree that we have a display problem with the lack of contrast between linked and unlinked entries. However, I don't think that display issues should be a factor in deciding whether to create redlinks. Display issues should be resolved by display modifications, not be redlinking.
I did toy with a few possibilities for display tweaking, by styling linked and unlinked entries differently. The simplest would be to italicise or grey out unlinked entries, which would solve the contrast issue ... but I'm unsure how either would fit with any style guides. My guess is that greying would cause less concern.
Another aspect to consider is the underlying color scheme. Like several similar templates, {{EstcatContinentCentury}} uses id="toc", which applies quite a dark background, which I don't think helps. This is actually a navbox rather than a TOC, so the ID is being misused. We really need some sort of "catnavbox" css. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Talking of greying,
User:Ianblair23 created an example worth looking at:
Template:2nd-millennium establishments in Grenada. This uses grey for dates within the scope of the category (e.g. millennium) but outside the scope of the country. It still includes redlinks within the scope of the country's history. I like it.
However, an alternative would be to remove altogether the dates that are inapplicable, and use grey instead of red or black where categories don't exist. –
FayenaticLondon23:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox20 is {{LinkCatIfExists}} modified to take a parameter unlinkedstyle, whose value should be any valid CSS style, without enclosing quote marks, e.g unlinkedstyle=color:yellow or (being silly to illustrate versatility) unlinkedstyle=color:pink; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: overline; font-size:130%
I agree that the dark background does not help, but don't understand enough about CSS to know whether to press for a separate catnavbox CSS. Presumably these nav templates could be rebuilt using the existing {{navbox}}, but would that make them more bulky?
Should there be a visual distinction between templates that mainly provide navigation within a category, e.g. century and millennium templates (acting as a TOC), and those that mainly provide navigation to sibling categories, e.g. year and decade templates (acting as a navbox)? On the other hand, century templates are mainly navboxes rather than TOCs where the table of years is suppressed... I'm just thinking aloud here.
Glad you like the grey. I have just been looking at the usage of {{LinkCatIfExists}}, and I can't say for certain whether all usages would benefit from greying. Most will, but I'm not sure it's 100%. So I suggest it's best to create a new {{LinkCatIfExists2}} with the greying built in, and deploy it. Then when all the templates have purged, we can see if there are any remaining use cases which shouldn't be greyed; if not, merge. Is that OK?
Glad you find {{Category see also if exists}} useful. Using it for cross-links between establishment and disestablishment categories sounds like a great use for it.
Since {{Category see also if exists}} is a variant of {{Category see also}}, I thought that naming it by adding "if exists" on the end was the clearest way of indicating that they are siblings. I can see a case for your suggested rename, to put "category if exists" together as one phrase, but I'm not sure that is enough gain to offset the divergence from {{Category see also}}. So I think best left as is unless {{Category see also}} is renamed in parallel. Maybe I am too close to it, so if you want to pursue the idea I suggest a
WP:RM.
On wider styling of category navigation, I think they need to be visual distinguished from the TOC styling of in-page navigation. I'm less sure about the merits of visually distinguishing between different types inter-category navigation ... but I think some sort more consistent approach would help.
I think that some day what needs to be done is a systematic analysis of different types of category navigation headers/boxes. When we have some sort of map of the use cases, then we could start defining a set of types, and design each of those. However, it'd be a big job, and I won't have time for it for a while. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, please go right ahead with the grey version.
As for the "see also" template, I was thinking that the usual one is {{See also category}}, since that's the name I've been using since I saw it being used in place of the old CatRel. Now I see, that's just another redirect. No need to move, then.
@
BrownHairedGirl: you were right about the delay. There are currently 65k using the new one but still 145k using the old. Between us we appear to have added > 10k transclusions this week! unless I might have accidentally left a mixture of both in one or more templates. –
FayenaticLondon23:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
BrownHairedGirl: now 118k plays 94k. I checked backlinks to the old template, looking for templates still using it, and there was only one (
[3]). IMHO you might as well copy the new one to {{LinkCatIfExists}} now, in which case I'll help to re-edit the chronology templates to use it. –
FayenaticLondon11:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Looking at again, I think there might be some uses for the ungreyed version. Since both exist, and are documented and cross-linked, I'm now inclined to keep both versions. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Currently, the easiest way to make such pages is to subst the standard template, and edit the results (either on the page or in a sandbox). To help with building and maintaining such pages, would it be worth making a decade-row sub-template of the century templates? –
FayenaticLondon10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be better to just add optional start and end date params to the by-century templates? Then output the row only if within scope.
I would have thought our suggestions would complement each other. Ten one-liners with dual date tests would be neater than ten ten-line chunks of code.
As for "topic-specific", I assume you are not referring to the country/century templates like the one referenced below. Those are designed to handle changes of name; I can't see an easy way around that. A decade-row sub-template could be used to handle multiple names, but would not be as neat where the name changes mid-decade. –
FayenaticLondon23:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I reckon the new core templates should use
WP:Lua. I did some doodling with it, and even my crude first-play-with-Lua hacks produced nice results. The main advantage is that most cases can be handled without any parameter for year/decade/century/etc, so that e.g in
Category:1916 disestablishments in Louisiana, {{
DisestcatUSstate|191|6|Louisiana}} could become {{
DisestcatUSstate|Louisiana}} ... and with a v little more programming, it could simply be used as {{
DisestcatUSstate}}.
My doodle was for a decade category. Just a proof-of-concept exercise, so I did little to polish the output. However, I did get it to the point of needing no parameters. It just needs a decade ("YYY0s" or "YY0s") somewhere in the title: beginning, middle or end. Doesn't handle BC yet.
PS I have a lot going on right now, so I can do little on this for the next few weeks, maybe months. But I thought it would better to set out now where my thinking had got to. I have more ideas on the presentation issues an on the structure of the templates, so as time permits, I'll add a few more thoughts on developing this. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I just came across {{navseasoncats}} – have you seen it? It takes no parameters and handles years, two-year seasons or decades, and like yours it automatically works out prefix/suffix text in category names. See e.g.
Category:1930s toys for a decade example. Like {{10years}} it shows a range centred on the current category rather than a calendar decade or century. It works by {{title year}} which invokes Module:String. However, it has limits, currently designed only for year 1000 onwards.
Community ban discussions
must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy
has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy
has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers
are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the
edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has
a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
A few months ago, you kindly pointed me to
WP:JWB for doing bulk null edits.
I thought I'd return the favour by saying that I finally found out how to do this using
WP:AWB.
It's in the last para of the "Null edit" section of
WP:Purge#Null_edit, just above the heading "forcerecursivelinkupdate":
If you have access to use the AutoWikiBrowser and need to purge a large number of pages (e.g. after changing a transcluded template), one way to do this is to append to the page and submitting it. No changes will be made, but the page will be purged. When doing this, make sure you set the use X newlines option to 0 newlines; otherwise, saving a newline with will cause an edit to be recorded
Jus make sure to
go to the AWB "options" tab and turn off everything
go to the AWB "skip" tab and turn off everything. (I was initially caught by leaving "only "genfixes" on)
Hi BHG, thanks for this. I don't currently use AWB at home or work, but this might be useful in future. Meanwhile, I have put in a new feature request for JWB to process null edits in bulk, e.g. 50 at a time rather than having to save each one; no promises on timing, but the suggestion has been
favourably received. –
FayenaticLondon12:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity
are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are
now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a
calendar widget at
Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at
WP:AE or
WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at
WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A
discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to
enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the
Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Hi. You closed
this CFD as purge and rename. Can you clarify what should happen next (e.g. are you waiting for other users to purge it before renaming it?, can the current categiry page text be removed?). Btw I'm a bit surprised the discussion wasn't closed as delete (with no restriction on creating a more focussed category). DexDor(talk)16:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi @
DexDor: I had listed it at
WP:CFDWM, and have belatedly tagged the category page with {{cfd manual}}. Yes, anyone may help, so feel free to change the page text or its parent categories.
I considered closing as "delete and replace", but chose "purge and rename" as it has the same result with less manual work. If you think it matters, I'm prepared to re-word the close. –
FayenaticLondon20:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
@
DexDor: Thanks. I purged a lot of the content (linking to the diffs on the talk page for the record), renamed the category, and changed the wording of the close. Feel free to remove further content. –
FayenaticLondon07:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply for your message available on my talk page.
Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at
Paquito590's talk page. You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
With pleasure – Done. Would you say the old names are liable to be used again? If not, I'll delete the redirects, as they have no other incoming links apart from a couple of userspace lists belonging to one BHGbot! –
FayenaticLondon10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd say there is a good chance they will be used. In my searches, I found that there is a v popular book
Loughs of Ireland: A Flyfisher's Guide from which derives most of the search hits for "Loughs of", so I think that some anglers will continue to look for "loughs".
And thanks again for closing it. With
WP:IECATNAVP moving towards implementation, it is good to have the name of that set decided.
A
proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an
OOUI overhaul,
syntax highlighting, ability to
search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to
see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to
Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a
cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only
occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon
be more informative and point users to a
help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on
desktop.
There will soon be a
calendar widget at
Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sorry - I have removed the nomination and hadn't quite got round to removing this note! - I was a bit heavy handed when tagging some subcategories! Apologies for the inconvenience! --
woodensuperman12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Dr David Clarke
I am the editor who updated David Clarke’s Wikipedia entry. (Dave himself is not on Wikipedia.) I left out the bit about the supposed dispute with Nick Pope as David considers it neither fair nor relevant; as it stands it looks like an attempt to attack Pope, which should not be in Wikipedia. So would you be prepared to let it go if I took it out again? Thanks.
Skeptic2 (
talk)
11:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Oh, and another thing: I don't know why he is described as a 'lecturer' in the headword, as he has been a journalist for most of his working life and that's what he is noted as. So can we change that? I realize it will need some revising of cross-references, which I hope you can do.
Skeptic2 (
talk)
15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Skeptic2: OK, if you repeat the edits, I won't reinstate the material again, but please record on the talk page, or at least in
edit summaries (or both), the reasons for deleting material that is supported by citations. –
FayenaticLondon21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Have now removed the potentially damaging material. Would you be able to change the title of the entry as suggested above?
Skeptic2 (
talk)
07:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Following a
successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the
"event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the
"account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based
cookie blocks should be
deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build
granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at
the talk page.
It is
now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A
recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e.
Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
I tried to update the single charts for Speeding Cars but couldn't figure out why,
the track has charted in all these countries too not just the 4 listed.
Hi, I was a bit surprised at
this close. True, the only explicit vote was for deletion, but if you read my own comment there, you could come to the conclusion that either the nom's rationale (and the delete vote) were bollocks based on a misunderstanding of the category, or that there's something fundamental that I am misunderstanding about
WP:TOPTEN. If it's the latter, then I'd certainly love to hear more. –
Uanfala (talk)22:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Uanfala: Counting the nominator, there were two editors for deletion and one for keeping. I could have relisted the discussion or found no consensus. However, the delete votes were based in Wikipedia policy, which adds weight, whereas the defence used
WP:OTHERSTUFF which is weak. As the members of the list change, I was persuaded by the argument that membership of the category is not defining. I have now added this rationale for the close on the CFD page. –
FayenaticLondon06:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
So I'm not misunderstanding
WP:TOPTEN then? Thank your for adding a rationale, but that makes the close even more bizarre as it now appears to be based on the fact that the two delete votes are citing a policy that has no relevance for the matter at hand. Do you think you could re-open the discussion, to give the two participants a chance to read
the article and decide if they still believe that policy applies? –
Uanfala (talk)10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I have no idea how
WP:TOPTEN is applied in practice, so I'm going along with what is explicitly stated in the guideline: Magazines and books regularly publish lists of the "top 10" (or some other number) in any particular field. Such lists tend to be subjective and may be somewhat arbitrary.. Now, the category in question here is
100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria, and this titles does indeed make it appear as though it's precisely the kind of thing that the guideline is about. However, as described in the article at
100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria, this is nota list of "top 100 tourist sites". This is an institutional selection of historical and natural sites that are nationally recognised for their significance. And the selection is stable: the only major change was after 1989, with the delisting of sites associated with the communist regime. Personally, I find the whole thing a bit cringey, but also this is precisely the thing I would expect there to be a category for. Of course, if TOPTEN turns out to be applied with a much broader scope that stated, or if there are other reasons to delete the category, that's fine by me. But it is not the case that this is a self-evident application of TOPTEN. –
Uanfala (talk)20:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Uanfala: as you may have noticed, I have done some work on the list at
100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria, bringing it more into line with the official website. The list is headed "As of 2009" and just editing items numbered 1 to 30 so far, I have added and removed several specific entries (added 6a.
Pomorie – Museum of Salt,
Lake Pomorie; 7.
Burgas – Cathedral of Saints Cyril and Methodius,
Poda Protected Area; 13. …
Konaka Museum; 16a.
Mezdra – Kaleto archaeological complex; 19. …
Uzana locality, House of Humour and Satire; 26. … Medieval Church of St George museum, regional historical museum; 27.
Blagoevgrad – Varosha Quarter, regional historical museum; 30a.
Karlukovo – National cave house; removedBelogradchik Fortress). If these additions were indeed not on the list in 2009, then at the detailed level the selection is not as stable as you suggest. –
FayenaticLondon17:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Uanfala: Some are specific attractions at locations already listed, but some are new locations not previously listed in 2009: Pomorie, Burgas, Mezdra, Blagoevgrad. Some of the specific attractions do have articles in Wikipedia, so membership of the category would not be stable. If we use a category, should it include pages for attractions formerly listed that are no longer listed? – in principle I would say yes, but editors may remove such members from the category. If there is no article for a specific attraction, should the town be a member of the category? - this is debatable. Overall I conclude that the list article does the job well, and a category does not. I did not know all this when I closed the CFD, but IMHO the majority view at the CFD came to the right decision. –
FayenaticLondon06:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Uanfala: I've finished updating the list now. I tagged 20 numbered locations that were added in the 2010s (i.e. in the current external list, and not previously in the Wikipedia list that was stated to be "as at 2009"). In addition, there were individual attractions that were added during that period, which I did not bother tagging. So, IMHO, it's not a stable enough list to be
WP:DEFINING for categorisation. Therefore I do not think it is worth re-opening the CFD.
If you disagree, your next step would be to take it to
WP:DRV.
Instead of the category, I suggest that every article for an attraction/location that was ever on the list should be given a "See also" link to the list, or a statement that it is/was on the list. –
FayenaticLondon19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your work! I don't think the general article is relevant enough in individual cases to warrant linking to it from the "See also" sections. –
Uanfala (talk)22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply