User talk:Fram

John Derrick Goze's animated short film Second Love has been selected at the film festival.^[1] GeniusTaker (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please don't move without discussion, there are no links to mounds only to pyramids Bildete (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion is on, please stop editing links till conclusion Bildete (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You used the "look how many pages link to the Pyramids" as an argument to keep that title, but you added these links in the first place... I just wanted to show ho easy it was to reverse that argument, "look at how many pages use "Tombs", but I guess you didn't like that. Fram (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not only templates links. Like Wietrzychowice, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship or Natalia Kicka name was there always, I only add links [[ ]].

But just don't vandalise to prove point. Bildete (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing was vandalized, all these links still worked perfectly and pointed to the same article as before... Fram (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for bringing the case to the administration. I really appreciate your action. This user keeps harassing me on WikiMedia. See here. JohnDavies9612 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem! I don't deal with Commons though, if it continues you should try to find some admin there. Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

At User talk:Shemgeneri, whom you warned a while back about a different issue. My concern is their use of AI to create new articles - I just rejected their DYK submission which seems to have include an irrelevant source. They are creating a lot of new articles recently, and IIRC you handle some RPP... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with for their most recent creations, their previous articles about recent events seem to be based correctly on news sources. Fram (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I've declined your G10 speedy deletion nomination of Murder of Aboubakar Cissé because I could not decipher how the page met the criteria, given that G10 is for pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. If you could explain why you nominated this page for G10, I can take a second look. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The page fully names a non-convicted BLP and states that he committed murder and details everything he allegedly did. While this may be correct (or not, he may be considered as mentally incapable of committing murder and considered temporarily or permanently insane or whatever), it is a severe BLP violation anyway until convicted. Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade:? Fram (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be offline, so I reinstated the CSD. Fram (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this matters, but the article is a translation from an entry on French Wikipedia [fr] which has been up since May without any major controversies. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Not really, frwiki may have other rules than our WP:BLPCRIME and the like. Fram (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, do you think this user Dwud (talk · contribs) could be this one Omarkhalid8292828 (talk · contribs)? Because they both created draft articles on the same topics, their edit summaries are almost the same, and the draft articles created by the new user seem to be created with poor resources like Dwud's. I wanted to share this with you since you reported the user to ANI months ago. Kajmer05 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

They're certainly similar, but it's not clear to me yet if they are socks or not. If you have more evidence, you can always start a case at WP:SPI. Fram (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The WP:VPP RFC survey on these is clearly against their creation, but I'm not sure what the next step from here should be. FOARP (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait for an uninvolved person to close the RfC (after 30 days normally), and then either draftify or delete the articles (assuming consensus stays the same as it appears now). Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Finally done, but the process was far from smooth as can be read here. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Judging by your talk page, you're passionate about deleting and getting into conflict with other users. Are you Wikipedia's director of publication? You haven't try to improve articles through discussion, you put banners, you delete and you leave. Luckily there are people like you to move things forward... Glabb (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not "passionate about getting into conflict with other users", many users react passionately when content they added is reverted because it is out of scope, a copyright violation, a BLP violation, ... I don't have the necessary user rights to delete pages, I can move pages to draft space or redirect them, or I can nominate them for deletion where other editors will check and possible discuss the issues before acting on them. And there are many articles where I try to discuss issues, when I have the feeling that discussion might be productive. Fram (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you please explain why you changed the name from Chaussée d'Alsemberg to Alsembergsesteenweg? There are specific naming conventions for Brussels, and since the street mostly runs through the Brussels region and is located in a bilingual area, I believe the Brussels conventions should take precedence here. Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was quite clear. 9 of the 11 sources are in Dutch, the route is partly in bilingual territory and part in Dutch, so why not go with the Dutch? The Brussels naming convention is only part of what should be taken into consideration, and it doesn´t require to give precedence to the French name anyway. Fram (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fram: Jhowie_Nitnek is right — as the article is mostly about the Brussels section of the road, the naming conventions do take precedence here. The French name is consistent with those of all the other chaussées/steenwegen in Brussels, per WP:TITLECON. Please see the Chaussée de Waterloo, the Chaussée de Charleroi and the Chaussée de Wavre for comparison — two of which cross Flemish Brabant. The Chaussée d'Alsemberg also ends in a monolingual French area (Braine-l'Alleud), so I do not think your argument provides sufficient basis for renaming. I have thus reverted your page move. If you still wish to carry out this change, please discuss it on the talk page. Jason Lagos (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Waterloo, Charleroi and Wavre are all three in the French language part of Belgium, Alsemberg is in the Dutch language part. Applying the convention from thise 3 to the new one is not logical. Fram (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. The fact that the three cities after which the other roads are named are in the French area is irrelevant here, in the same way that we would not necessarily choose a German name if the road ended, or was named after, a place in the East Cantons. The important thing is to choose the WP:COMMONNAME that is most suited to the context of the article and consistent with all the Category:Streets in Brussels (which the article mostly covers), as well as being in line with the naming conventions. As far as the English-language Wikipedia is concerned, that name is 'Chaussée d'Alsemberg'. Jason Lagos (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

No such thing has been established, and I don´t see why the non-Brussels part of the road is dismissed so out of hand here. Fram (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I noticed that you reverted my contribution (see ). I consider this is a vandalism.

And please do not delete my contribution on List of United Nations observances. If you consider my article does not have notability, you can use {{notability}} but not {{db}}.

About why I created it because I saw there is no articles on Wikipedia about the observances of the UN. I read on and numerous contents are shown. In addition, I checked WP:NOTE to ensure the notability.

Noordpunt (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDALISM and especially WP:NOTVANDALISM. Neither your creation of that article, my redirection, or your revert, were vandalism. They were standard content presentation disputes. "there is no articles on Wikipedia about the observances of the UN": then what is UNESCO International Days? My redirection / call for deletion are not about notability, but about duplication. We don't need two articles about the same subject. Fram (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean de Reyn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean de Reyn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have contested this deletion in the article's talk page. This is to provide more detail about his early life rather than the main article. As you may see, these two are not very similar.Babin Mew (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You seem to follow the source way too closely in phrasing and order though. Fram (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I will fix it. This is just a foundation. Hence, the under construction template. Babin Mew (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you remove the speedy deletion now? Babin Mew (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile solved by others! Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charles M. Schulz § GA/FA plans. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've already reverted their edit and warned them they'll fail the class if they do so again, but a "nice" message from you should put the proper fear of wiki-god-admin in them, I hope. See Linguistic purism in Korean: Revision history - Wikipedia _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

BusterD (who is an admin) beat me to it! Fram (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't sure you were around so I BOLDed. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to do so, I'm not very territorial :-) Fram (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I've closed this discussion since it had become somewhat of a mess due to the editors moving the article while it was up for deletion. My reading (and Sandstein's I believe) is that there are still valid arguments to delete the article for lacking notability, so if you wish to renominate it, you should feel free to do so immediately. Malinaccier (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank, I'll think about it! Fram (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fram, I recently learned about WP:FRAM. Could you tell me the story and the reason why it happened? Thanks, ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 05:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'ld rather not rehash that old discussion. Basically a few disgruntled editors had tried to get me blocked or banned onwiki by repeatedly posting a laundry list of largely invented issues, but people on enwiki actually check those things and didn't fell for it. Apparently the WMF either didn't check these things and the previous discussions, or knew it was largely bogus used it anyway as a nice excuse anyway because I had pissed off too many people there by sinking a number of very poor projects they had imposed (and allegedly by exposing the very poor editing of someone who turned out to be the spouse or girlfriend of someone high in the Board of the WMF, don't know whether that was true and played as well or not); the WMF then imposed a completely out-of-process ban (I mean, it wasn't even supported by their own rules) without any discussion, which at first lead people to believe I had done something egregious and unspeakable (but then again, in that case my ban wouldn't have been time-limited or restricted to one project only). Total chaos erupted, with half the people cursing the WMF and the other half jumping on the bandwagon and inventing claims about me. In the end, I was unbanned but de-adminned, and enwiki/WMF relations were at a low (again) for quite a while. Fram (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Fram! Rather than create a digression at the AfD itself, I thought I’d drop a line here. You seem to have ‘changed horses in midstream’ in your example of inconsistent coverage: you start in Algeria but then mention the absence of Casablanca, Fez & Rabat, which are all in Morocco. I don’t know whether or not there are equally important missing cities in Algeria, but the Morocco section does show only (a historical flag of) Tangier … OTOH it’s not at the top of the page, so I don’t know which country would make the better example. Regardless, the statement is nonsequitous as it stands. —Odysseus1479 21:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I meant to discuss Morocco, no idea why my brain switched them! I don´t have the time to correct it now, am on mobile which edits a lot harder, but thank you for bringing this here! Fram (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw you made a PROD on my newest listicle, and as a result, I have decided to make sure I could give a link to the listicle by making an article based on one of the listed accidents, I wrote the article on 2014 Montreal train sideswipe incident, and I'm still learning the ropes, so I hope this can at least have one of my newest listicles be kept.

I did the article because I was scratching my head to see what was wrong with the GP9 listicle, so I'm doing my first attempt at creating an article based around a train wreck, and I am always trying my very hardest to get it to meet the notability guidelines.

So what do you think of it? If any improvements need to be made, don't just nominate it for deletion, instead, message me on my talk page on what improvements need to be made and I will try to make sure it meets that standard. Insomniac187 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it can be improved to a state where it would be an acceptable article, as the topic is the issue, not what or how you write about it. Fram (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 20 § Category:1850 establishments in Guadeloupe on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade Hosts - new unreferenced article. I don't know which tool to use to do this quickly. Needs refs before it can be mainspaced, at least _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. I draftify simply by moving the page to the draftspace, nothing more or less. Fram (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fram By your definition, no page dedicated to an award or decoration has any notability. Thousands of military members have been awarded these decorations and many persons who are not in the military would like to know what they look like as well as why they are awarded. By taking down these pages, you are prioritizing some awards over others for no reason than "notability." It also makes pages such as Awards and decorations of the United States government look incomplete as some awards have links to a description page, while others do not. Explain how this makes wikipedia better? TexasBob85 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

By my definition, which is the Wikipedia definition, something like Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross or the Order of the Garter is clearly notable, see e.g. this book or this book are obvious signs of major notability. And it doesn't have to be complete books, indepth articles in reliable, independent sources are sufficient.

Having lists where some entries are notable and (can) have a separate article, while others don't, is perfectly normal across Wikipedia. Not all "members" of a certain class (whether they are persons, awards, books, ...) are a priori equally notable and should be treated the same. Fram (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course the Medal of Honor is going to be more notable. That's an extreme example. There are hundreds of other pages dedicated to the lesser military awards and decorations. What makes one of them more notable than another. For example there is an Armed Forces Volunteer Service medal that has it's own page, yet you nominated the NOAA Corps Volunteer medal for deletion. They should have the same level of notability as they are similar awards. TexasBob85 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

There probably are other pages with the same issues, yes. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I come across pages which are newly created and check if these are up to our standards, I don't check all 7 million other articles as well. Fram (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, then there are hundreds of pages dedicated to military awards and decorations that don't meet "notability" requirements - probably the most unequally applied standard I've ever heard of. If a decoration has to meet the level of the medal of honor or victoria cross - that is a ridiculous standard. TexasBob85 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. You said that "no page" would have any notability under my rules, which was obviously incorrect. Many lesser awards are easily shown to be notable, but many others have no notability. Just like with any other subject. Fram (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Except nowhere can you find a clear definition of what makes something notable. I would say that the US government / US military issuing an award would automatically make it notable simply because of the scale and influence of both of those bodies. There are 2.8 million current members of the US military and many more retired/former members who may have been issued medals. That's not notable? There are 2.9 million federal employees. Again with many more retired/former employees. How are these persons not notable by sheer magnitude of numbers? Thousands of decorations are awarded yearly. Not notable? TexasBob85 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:GNG. And no, not notable for any of the reasons you give. Fram (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly - notability is a dubious quality that allows wikipedia editors to delete pages for no reason. Thanks for reaffirming that. TexasBob85 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! Fram (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't a compliment. It was a condemnation of wikipedia editors and their lack of proper guidelines and using their own lack of objectivity to decide with capris. TexasBob85 (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Consider me properly condemned then. Fram (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Re this. Do not talk to me about copyrights. I merely split this stuff out of Vorkutlag page, see the "copied" tags. The text was massively added by user:TheTankman to Vorkutlag in 2023. Where have you been then? :-) You may want to put the copyright issue notice to Tankman's talk page. --Altenmann >talk 18:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You didn´t see any problems in creating this as a separate page, instead of trimming it at the original page. That is your choice, your responsability. It´s not a case of some hard to spot copyvio, the issues were present and visible. Fram (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No I didnt see a problem of cutting out a huge chunk of text of marginal relevance even in trimmed state, similar to "popculture" sub-articles. My goal was to eliminate it as a magnet for further watering down the article, because I am sure much more people wrote memoirs about gulag. I confess that after some time, waiting for snow to cover my tracks, I was going to nominate it for deletion as WP:UNDUE/WP:TRIVIA/WP:PRIMARY after distributing the text among notable inmates.

I did not think it is a copyvio because these pieces are clearly marked as quotes. I do agree they violate WP:MOSQUOTE, but this was of no concern for me at the moment. --Altenmann >talk 22:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1958 in Guadeloupe indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s in Guadeloupe indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that move. The "most wanted" title has subtly chafed at me for years for exactly the reasons stated. BD2412 T 18:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome! It's the kind of move that either gets thanks (you are the second!) or gets backlash for daring to move a long-standing page without getting consensus first :-) We used to have (perhaps still have) a list of most-viewed or most-searched redlinks, which was a lot more interesting (until it got run over by bots, that is). Fram (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I didn't get a chance to respond to the speedy deletion nomination of Design.com, since it was deleted within a couple of hours of being tagged.

My response would have been that:

• TechRadar rated Design.com one of the five best online logo makers (ref) amongst such heavyweights as Canva, Wix and Adobe Express.
• The site receives more than 5 million monthly visits (ref from Semrush).
• DesignCrowd, the company that operates Design.com, has been active for 18 years and raised more than $A22m in capital (ref from TechCrunch), and is one of Australia's more well-established and successful tech startups. (Edit: now over $A30m - ref)

I believe these are credible claims of significance or importance which make the article invalid for speedy deletion.

Thanks, Stormie (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article has been undeleted, and moved to the Draft namespace. Whether or not it has a credible claim of significance or importance, it certainly doesn't demonstrate notability, as it is entirely sourced to press releases, which are not independent reliable sources as required for notability. Therefore, whether it fit the A7 criteria or not, it certainly isn't a worthy Wikipedia article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fram. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:NZ-non-WANZ-members, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Looks like it was created in the wrong namepsace and has now been corrected. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it is at the right place now either, should a) be in project space probably, and b) doesn't it belong in some "special" namespace specifically for such pages? When I want to edit it, it is listed as a "special" page, so perhaps it should be moved to the same location of other "special" pages? All very confusing in any case, and shouldn't be possible in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That's probably a discussion you need to have with the page creator. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Fram. Thank you for pointing out, that there may be too few independent references for the article Stemfie that I initially wrote. I have now added a collection of relevant and indepedent references. Alekssadowski (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not certain if all the added sources are reliable sources or some of them more blog- or hobbyist-like, but overall it seeems sufficient. Fram (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hallo. You reverted my edit terming "we are not a tabloid" and that it's of "no encyclopedic importance". That is no tabloid journalism, it isn't speculative or sensationalist as tabloid would refer to, why would you claim so? Akili88 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:DAILYEXPRESS: "The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable." The factoid you added was typical tabloid clickbait / fake controversy over minor issues. Fram (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello; can you please justify this move? I don't think this article should redirect to Fashion law. The article is incomplete, I have many other sections to add. It intersects with the fashion law in some paragraphs, but this must not be a barrier against the other information to be published. Mervat (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You can recreate it, but as it stood it was more a how-to page than a neutral overview of the concept and its history. Perhaps creating it through the WP:AFC process would be best. Fram (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fram! The article List of Agnibaan launches successfully passed Articles for creation criteria. Then why did you remove its content? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 16:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Passing AfC doesn't mean that it can't be redirected, deleted, ... I removed the contents because you have only one actual launch in that "list", and as long as that stays the same, we don't need a list. I have now selected a different redirect target, you can add the TBA lines there if you want. Fram (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This list will become even more extensive as soon as AgniKul begins its orbital launches. I created this article to alleviate the burden on the Agnikul Cosmos article. I didn't think it was right for you to delete it in such a unilateral manner. I urge you to reinstate the article in its previous form. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that you have shifted all the content to Agnibaan, which seems good to go as of now. However, as the launch list progresses and becomes much larger, I will revive this article.

– Best regards! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 17:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 20 § Category:Namur (city) on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw your comments at some of the recent NARROWCAT CfDs. Looks like one of them snuck through though: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 1#College football players in Pennsylvania small categories. I noticed this change on my watchlist.

There really needs to be a bigger discussion about this stuff. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

What was the crux of Fram's comments? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_9#Drexel_Dragons_football_players ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I know you mean well, but inviting like-minded editors to deletion discussions is not allowed per WP:CANVASS. Fram (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't invite anyone to anything. Jweiss11 was already at that CfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Fram, WikiOriginal-9 did not invite me to any CfD. I've been engaged in many of the these college sports bio-related CfDs for some time. I also have your talk page on my watchlist and saw this discussion come up there. Am I allowed to invite "like-minded editors" here? Because it seems there are a number of editors who see the value in supporting low-population or "narrow" cats when they are part of an established class. In addition to the three of us, there's Mike Selinker and Habst. I was not aware before of the deprecation of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth. Maybe we should have another RFC on this? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I also wasn't invited to any CfD (I found them through Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Article alerts), though I would appreciate being pinged if there was a future RfC on this. --Habst (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Nor was I. I was pinged on my talk page because a category I created was nominated. I don't think anyone's vote farming here. Mike Selinker (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought you were canvassing me to the CfD discussion you linked in your original post (we had similar opinions, and "one of them snuck through" sounded like "hey, you missed one where you can vote "keep" as well!"). But that discussion was already closed when you posted, so your intention was not what I made it out to be. Fram (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to brainstorm how to solve this. Either abolishing NARROWCAT, or changing it, may be the way to go (would require, after this discussion, first a discussion at WP:VPPR and then an RfC at WP:VPP I guess). One change that may make things a lot better would be to replace "Such categories should only be created when both parent categories are large enough for diffusion to be an option" with "Such categories should only be created when at least one parent category is large enough for diffusion to be an option". Fram (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on revising that these guideline have traditionally been held with an at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. If you think we should keep the WP:NARROWCAT but use it less often, modifying it would make sense but, if you don't think it should be used at all, deletion would be cleanest. You might also want to take a look at the deprecated WP:SMALLCAT guideline to see if you favor restoring it since some of the !votes have sounded close to the reasoning there.

I would likely respectfully weigh in against most of these proposals, so take my input with a grain of salt. But I feel more strongly that the editing guidelines should stay in sync with community consensus.

All the best! RevelationDirect (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have the discussion at Overcat or another cat talk page, to avoid the "incrowd" or "limited audience" issues (both pro and con). I am not certain what the best solution would be, nor whether consensus would be for that "best" solution: in any case the input from you and User:Marcocapelle and all the others would obviously be welcome. Fram (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fram,

I really think that categories for discussion works best when we respond to the merits of the nomination (or lack thereof) and not with our opinion of the nominator. It's fine to have a low opinion of another editor of course, but voicing that view in the wild outside of dispute resolution creates a lot of back and forth without moving the discussion toward consensus.

Even when we disagree with an editor on a given nomination, I'd love it if we could try to assume good faith and keep things collegial! - RevelationDirect (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Good faith only goes so far... Unacceptable or completely incorrect remarks need to be called out or else they wrongly influence discussions and get repeated again and again. The staggering replies I got about e.g. the BLP issue (from multiple editors) are worrying, and if at least one editor comes away from that discussion with the new insight that removing BLP violations is way more important than some CfD discussion rule, then it will have been somewhat worth it.

And some people are very, very quick to shout "personal attack!" when their problematic reasoning and wrong arguments are pointed out. It's a poor tactic which only makes them look worse. Fram (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with RevelationDirect. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with single-article categories but making personal comments only discredits our argument.

What I think would be valid, however, is to say that many of these college sports category CfDs are so similar that they should be bundled, where I am fairly confident the community will decide to keep them, rather than making many small low-participation nominations. --Habst (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Habst, yes, having so many similar and closely-timed nominations split out over many different nominations often has the effect of retendering different verdicts for effectively identical scenarios, all in the same short period of time. It's no secret that we are largely discussing the CFD efforts of Johnpacklambert here. Regarding the sizing and pace of CFD nominations, just last week I made a complaint about this point on JPL's user talk page here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The article I put to bed last night was not quite worthy of the subject matter or the scholarship standard required by Wikipedia. While it may be my first fully written article since signing up to edit in 2009, the initial version was assuredly a rookie attempt. That said, your challenge spurred me to make it 100X better today. I have made dozens of edits, added notoriety elements, and included as may links and inline citations as I think relevant. As a result, I think it is much better following your challenge and hope it now passes muster with the Admin community. Motxoc (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Fram, I am now kind a sorry for behaving rude sometimes as i am also understanding the things. Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, we live and learn. Fram (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why it should just be a redirect instead of a full article. The other astronomical lists aren't redirects, so why should the one I started be one? LobedHomunculus (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Because the page I redirected to has much better information than your rather random list. I don't know how you decided that the ones you included are the smallest, but you missed so many of them that it was rather useless. Fram (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

As for the small amount of objects, I added a notice saying the list was incomplete. I can't add everything that quickly. LobedHomunculus (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

See this comment from a WMF staff member about temporary accounts, especially this part:

In past discussions, some volunteers have criticized how the Foundation represented its past research about the effect of banning unregistered editing on the two wikis where it has at least briefly taken place. We discussed this internally and agreed that some of our public comments were overstating the strength of the evidence. We’ve updated our temporary accounts FAQ to make it clearer that the studies we’ve done show mixed results and that their observational nature makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions at all. Thank you to those who pointed out these issues.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Dream of Saint Joseph (1640s) by Philippe de Champaigne is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, best wishes to you too! Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and best wishes to you and yours too! Fram (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

		Hi Fram Season's Greetings and all the best for 2026
		Wherever you are and whatever you believe in (or don't), reach out for peace on this little planet of ours! HAPPY HOLIDAYS 🥳 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Best wishes and a great 2026 for you as well! Fram (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Fram, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1901 establishments in Slovakia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1901 in Slovakia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Fram,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 18:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 18:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I see that you tagged that article while patrolling new pages. If you observe the author's contributions, though, they've added a lot of LLM content really quickly. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1952 establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1952 in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1925 establishments in Montenegro indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1925 in Montenegro indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that I have seen similar behavior before. I am not entirely sure that it was on Wikipedia (after 45 years of being paid well to deal with twentieth-century technology). I think that if the sandbox is deleted and adding an entry to the sandbox is still on the task list for the bot, the bot will recreate the sandbox. I think that we need to remove the task from the task list for the bot. If the bot has stopped dumping sand into the sandbox, maybe it is safe to delete the sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. The bot is called by code on the page (a bit like an archivebot would be), and if the code is removed the bot won't edit or create the page. Fram (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Fram. It isn't true that disclosures have to be made on enwiki to comply with OUTING rules. Instead, our OUTING rules say that there may be times when disclosures on other sites are OUTING. The relevant bulletpoint states It is generally more acceptable to reference information voluntarily disclosed only on another Wikimedia project if it is clear the user does not mind wider dissemination (e.g. posted on a user's public userpage at another Wikimedia wiki) and less acceptable if it requires much "research" to find (particularly information later removed by the user in question). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the same thing. The WMF-site says "...has become my username." And it's not a deleted talkpage comment or anything close, so IMO that removal was not in spirit/wording of OUTING. Don't know if he needs blocking from en-WP per WP:ORGNAME, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The account claimed by Treufeldt has not made any post making that connection (or no such post was at least provided in the post I removed I think). And the interview makes it sound like a shared account to boot. Fram (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:DOX says "that person has voluntarily posted", my emphasis. And in the context of a WMF-site interview (per further [note 1] text), this seems policy-compliant to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a slippery slope to me. "The person", like I said, any Jane or John Doe can claim to be me, in a WMF interview or otherwise, that doesn't make them me. (Note, my removal of the post per OUTING should not be seen as an attempt to block the poster, this was obviously done in good faith even if one believes it is outing). Is it likely to be correct? Yes, but that has never been a defense against outing claims or removal.

Let's be clear: I received an indef outing block for linking someone to their real name, when that editor, from their own account, had made that link on Wikidata (but not on enwiki). Here, the account has made no such declaration, a person claims that the account is theirs, and that is not outing? Seems very, very bizarre. Fram (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

And IMO, not slippery enough. If it helps, we can add 467 "own work" Commons-uploads like File:Esna mõisa kalmistu 04.jpg from 2014 to 2025, they have uploader and name of author and states it's his own work.

Off-subject, but I do think WP:DOX should have a "FFS, it's in WaPo and NYT!!!" clause. I once had a WSJ-interview where the interviewee said "Yep, that username was me." but noooo, can't use that in the article, still outing. That really annoyed me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that Commons link is what is needed to stop it being outing. Fram (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Ah, he even wikilinked the author-name to the account, that should indeed be unambiguous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on talk:List of best-selling books under the heading "Blanket ban on "books of a religious, ideological, philosophical or political nature"" that you may be interested in. DervotNum4 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

Looks like some cleanup is needed of country-based index navigation footers that no longer apply due to the AfDs of the indexes included in them.

The second one has mostly redirects to outlines.

They're not distinct templates that can be tracked down with "What links here", but generic template placements with parameters added.

I'll chip in as I find the time. And I'll keep a lookout for more fragments left behind.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   13:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Vatican City–related articles

Perhaps you can clarify your position there and put your previous deletion into perspective.

Someone said it set a bad precedent.

I don't plan on participating. You can do the honors.

They didn't mention you by name, but close enough.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   13:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Whilst I recognise that these persons' attendance of the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire is "not a defining characteristic", it was nevertheless a one-time event with its own Commemorative Medal, which each guest received. Consequently, I believe this shared distinction to be worthy of note, similar to the Legion of Honour (France) or the Order of Charles III (Spain). S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be much better as a list than as a category. Being elevated to the Legion d'Honneur is for many people the highest recognition they receive: but for the people in your category, this is just one of many, many similar things. Fram (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In that case, what about a compromise? We rename the category to better fit the fact that each guest received the event's Commemorative Medal: "Category:Commemorative Medal of the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire" S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Category:Recipients of the Commemorative Medal of the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire"*

S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not really a compromise. I just spotchecked, and of the 5 articles I looked at, only one even mentioned this before today: this shows that this is not an important thing for the articles on these people, but a really minor thing which shouldn't have any kind of category. Fram (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then let’s rewrite it as a list. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Would that be acceptable for your purposes? S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 28 § Category:Typographers and type designers by nationality on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 20:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)