Archives

2018,2019,2020,2021,2022,2023,2024,2025,2026

This page has archives. Topics inactive for30 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than1.

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your new mop.Andre🚐18:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!!!!^SMason_Garrison20:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the mop; you made it through. Enjoy mopping;user:Qwerfjkl/scripts/CFDlister is super helpful for closing discussions. The "list discussions" button posts toWT:CFDW rather thanWP:CFDW, so you have to click "edit discussions" and copy/paste them manually into CFD. (It was designed that way because my dear friendQwerfjkl has yet toturn this link blue.) If you need any help,let me know. You've got this—I am certain you will be fantastic.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)21:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗^SMason_Garrison21:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CongratulationsSmasongarrison! I am pretty sure that you'll become a great administrator. Cheers!Fade258 (talk)00:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! When you get bored of scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the most apt block message, there is a nifty drop down menu that some kind person put in my monobook.ϢereSpielChequers17:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats! Sorry I missed your RfA. — Qwerfjkltalk19:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries :) Now we just need to get you to run. Next election is in December :)^SMason_Garrison00:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, good news. Congratulations and welcome! –FayenaticLondon07:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Can’t remember if I chimed in to the congrats-a-thon! Well done.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)22:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  :)

  ^SMason_Garrison22:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The admin baton
	Perancient tradition, it is my great pleasure to pass on this baton to you, asCurbon7 did to me. It serves as a reminder that, despite dramas petty and grand, we work together to build an encyclopedia. You, holding this baton, are saluted by all its past holders. Enjoy it and then pass it on to the next AELECT admin as soon as you can!jlwoodwa (talk)00:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk)00:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting! I would like to kindly ask for your assistance to remove the category "19th-century scientists from the Ottoman Empire" from [Category:19th-century_Bulgarian_scientists]. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it myself, because there seems to be a template impossible to edit. Please, include on its place "Category:19th-century scientists by nationality|Bulgarian". There is no reason whatsoever to have "19th-century scientists from the Ottoman Empire" in that category: although after the Liberation of Bulgaria the country was formally an Ottoman vassal, it actedde facto as a fully independent state with its own symbols (Ottoman flags were not waved anywhere, Ottoman state symbols were not used in any form), language (Turkish was not official and not used in any official correspondence), currency (the lev was the only currency) and politics (not a single act of coordinating or asking for approval for elections; not a single form of foreign policy coordination - the Bulgarian diplomatic missions abroad acted completely independent of and were separated from the Ottoman missions). In the field of science, the Bulgarian scientists did not have any coordination, collaboration or publishing initiatives with the Ottoman Empire. By that logic, the 19th century scientists from Serbia and Romania should also be included as scientists/biologists/geographers/etc. from the Ottoman Empire, because they were also formally vassals of the Ottoman Empire for more than 3/4 of the 19th century; even more so, Czech scientists have to the from the Austrian Empire; Polish scientists from the German and Russian Empire, etc. It makes no sense. Best regards, --Gligan1 (talk)08:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

>There is no reason whatsoever to have "19th-century scientists from the Ottoman Empire" in that category: although after the Liberation of Bulgaria the country was formally an Ottoman vassal, it acted de facto as a fully independent state with its own symbols

But it is a vassal during this time. I could add it as both a subcat of the ottoman empire as well as directly in Category:19th-century_scientists by nationality.

In regards the the fact that the templates are fully comprehensive, well... it takes time to code them up.^SMason_Garrison14:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation moved toTemplate_talk:Occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header^SMason_Garrison14:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I noticed you're doingWikipedia:Cleanup. In theGiorgia Meloni article, sinceLa7 should never be italicized, could you correct it in reference 347 by removing the italics?~2026-43060-9 (talk)13:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can make this edit request on the talk page.^SMason_Garrison13:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

QuickCategories Batch #12224 added the red linked categoryCategory:21st-century chessplayers to a bunch of pages, can you fix these please?Iffy★Chat --15:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Done, in case they were busy.ミラP@Miraclepine19:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Sorry for the typo🤦^SMason_Garrison22:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw you've done a bit of recategorization work with SCOTUS case lists recently, which I appreciate. However, my understanding of the 'SCOTUS cases by year' category is that it was intended to be used only for direct cases themselves, rather than as a catch-all for everything related to the Supreme Court in a specific year. That's why, so far, only cases themselves were included in the category, even including some redirects to those lists in the case of grant-vacate-remand and/or per curiam cases likePenner v. United States. This gives navigational value in seeing all of the cases from a year, while also guaranteeing that any single categorized article corresponds to a specific case. (Admittedly I could be misunderstanding the general idea behind organizing like this, and even if I wasn't it could be better documented.)

I hope it's not impolite to ask if you'd be willing to self-revert here? If my reasoning doesn't quite make sense, let me know and I'll try to explain a bit better.

Also, semi-relatedly, I'm a bit confused by the message you left on my talk. Aren't 'by year' categories a bit of a different case from subject categories, where it makes sense to avoid single-page eponymous categories? For example, numerous single-page subcategories ofCategory:Births by year exist, which I don't believe anyone considers to be unreasonable. The navigational value comes from the sorting given by the categories, rather than by grouping related topics.

Thanks,GTink911 (talk)06:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to talk about my reasoning for both. In regards to the list of opinions for Supreme court cases, those were in the case law parent category of likeYEAR in United States case law. So as far as it looked to me, it made sense ot move them from American cases into the Supreme court cases. Why would we not include those? I would need to understand your reasoning for not wanting to exclude lists of cases.

In terms of populating categories, I think regardless of the type of category, it is almost never helpful for navigation to have a lot of categories with single pages.My recommendaiton as based on the fact that there was only one page in the category, instead of multiple pages. I was able to populate several of the categories with multiple pages, but as a general rule, categories should have more than one page in them.^SMason_Garrison19:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, I missed your message until now. The issue with doing it like that is that it breaks the 1:1 nature of the case-related categories. A similar example would beCategory:United States Supreme Court cases, which, despite being related to, the case list categories aren't categorized into. This is because doing so would break the principal that you could pick any single article within that category and be presented with a specific case and corresponding information. This is also why certain redirects are made and categorized; while they redirect to the lists, they still identify a single case that Wikipedia has significant information about.

About single-page year categories, on the whole I don't disagree with you, but I think this is a special case. The navigational value comes from sorting articles by a specific characteristic, which as long as the characteristic is general enough is only helpful. And not to point too much at other stuff, but single-page year categories are already very common in other X by year categories, so I don't think this is a unique case. I would also note thatWP:C2F, the criteria for deletion of single-page categories, only mentions eponymous categories. Since it would (I believe) survive a deletion attempt, I think this is an okay thing to do within a reasonably broad subject area, and in particular one that will keep adding more articles within those old years over time as more are documented.GTink911 (talk)06:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking you is to populate the categories you create.^SMason_Garrison23:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I noticed you created theTemplate:Jewellers by nationality and century category header a couple of years ago. It is appearing in theCategory:Jewellers by nationality but templates don't belong in mainspace categories perWP:CAT#T. Usually I'm able to fix it when I see templates in mainspace categories but I'm not sure with this one. Would you be able to help with that? ThanksAusLondonder (talk)05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I'm of two minds with these category templates living in a mainspace category. I agree that most of the time templates don't belong in mainspace as they're not articles. However, for this class of categories, they're designed for categories rather than articles and are in a container category (as in a category that isn't intended for articles). So I don't know if the advtange of being able to see that the template exists is worth the devivation from the classic interpretation of the policy. So I don't really know the right solution here. (or if there is one)^SMason_Garrison13:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Smasongarrison; Apologies for replying here, but I archived my Talk page before thinking to reply there. Thank you for letting me know about the issues re:Robert Forsyth; In my defense, I was operating under the assumption that Wikipedia utilizes the colloquial understanding of "police officer", i.e. "law enforcement officer". All police officers are LEOs, but not all LEOs are police officers. However, there are individuals on these pages that are indeed not "police officers", but served as marshals, constables, (deputy) sheriffs, etc. I understand that the other concern was over-categorization. I will readily admit that my weakest area on Wikipedia is likely categorization, so I will attempt to remedy this. Thanks for your time and attention! -MWFwiki (talk)21:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A good rule of thumb is to look at the category parents to help get a sense of how the nesting works. Do also be mindful about the first point I made about creatingCategory:18th-century American police officers. You really should only be creating create categories that you intend to populate with multiple pages.^SMason_Garrison23:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For sure; Idid indeed believe that there are likely other pages that would fit in that category, but I 100% understand and appreciate the direction!MWFwiki (talk)00:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectAmbisexual has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 29 § Ambisexual until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk)16:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smasongarrison,

I don't understand all of these "Generals" categories that have recently been created and then emptied. SeeCategory:Generals by country as an example. Do you know what is going on here?Liz^Read!Talk!05:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. JohnpacklambertUser talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2026/January#Category:Generals by nationality made a huge mess by jumping the gun on categorization prior to closing and interpreting a consensus that wasn't there. There's also aconversation happening about them losing their categorization privileges. It's a big mess because they don't seem to understand that reverting all of these changes makes the mess worse^SMason_Garrison17:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert has made a similar huge mess with slavery categories. Hugely frustratingKingbird1 (talk)08:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smasongarrison,

This is the first time I am using the functionality of wiki. I apologise in advance if you are not the right person to help me.

So my father, C.M. Palvia, was Jan Tinbergen's first doctoral Ph.D. recipient, and yet his name is not listed on his doctoral student list. Is this something you can help me with as I see you as a visitor on Jan Tinbergen's page ? At 71, I am C.M. Palvia's youngest son and am motivated to get my father's name be put on this list. I wonder if you can help me as I have posted on Jan Tinbergen's Talk page, but there has been no response.

While yo can have this fact corroborated directly by the alumni department at Erasmus University, you can also verify by searching for "Palvia Tinbergen" on Chatgpt of Perplexity AI engines. Thanks for your time, PJPalviaPjpalvia (talk)15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend bringing this question/request to thetalk page ofJan Tinbergen. They would need sourcing for this piece of information, and I'm also not sure that every PhD student is listed on the page.^SMason_Garrison23:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case atDeletion Review in which the submitter wants to recreate a category that was deleted in 2007. The question is how long deletion of a category is enforced by G4. I think that the issue is that an article is only substantially the same as a deleted article if its text and sources are the same or almost the same as the deleted article, but the title of a category is its definition, so any recreation of a category is substantially the same as what was deleted. In the case in point, which isCategory:Scott Boras clients, my thought is that the appellant should be allowed to recreate the category, subject to a newCFD, becauseconsensus can change. (By the way,Scott Boras is a sports agent for baseball players. I don't know if that matters.) So I think that your opinion at theDRV would be useful.Robert McClenon (talk)21:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's a good question. I think your approach makes sense. I don't really think that's the intent of a deletion review, which is for relatively recent cases. They'll have a stronger case if they can point to similar categories existing categories to make the case that it is defining.^SMason_Garrison23:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:North Africa on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)23:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
3		Thomas Lee (notary)(talk)	Add sources
8		Timeline of Quebec history (1791–1840)(talk)	Add sources
76		Hugo de Vries(talk)	Add sources
38		Zoya Fyodorova(talk)	Add sources
5		Tourville, Quebec(talk)	Add sources
4		Lordship of Champlain(talk)	Add sources
411		Shona people(talk)	Cleanup
146		Loona (singer)(talk)	Cleanup
323		Mbira(talk)	Cleanup
59		Timeline of US intervention in Syria(talk)	Expand
343		Languages of Zimbabwe(talk)	Expand
237		Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike(talk)	Expand
61		Mashonaland(talk)	Unencyclopaedic
318		2 Unlimited(talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3		Zdeněk Beran(talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9		Safety statement(talk)	Merge
161		Societas Europaea(talk)	Merge
85		Samsung Galaxy A02(talk)	Merge
5		Timothy Hierlihy(talk)	Wikify
17		Christopher Billop(talk)	Wikify
52		Oscar and the Wolf(talk)	Wikify
2		Pavel Brázda(talk)	Orphan
3		Ukrainian Studio of Plastic Arts(talk)	Orphan
4		Beis Moshiach(talk)	Orphan
3		James Ratchford DeWolf(talk)	Stub
3		Paschal Dumais(talk)	Stub
2		Joseph Garon(talk)	Stub
2		Nathaniel Marsters(talk)	Stub
6		Josef Velenovský(talk)	Stub
3		Jonathan Crane (politician)(talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know onSuggestBot's talk page. --SuggestBot (talk)12:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century people from the Kazakh Khanate has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.QuietHere (talk |contributions)19:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recentmotion, a rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor'sArab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). Theconfirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automaticallycheck your eligibility to vote.