Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I'd do it myself but I think that there needs to be a notice put on the talk pages for the outcome of the debate. Or is that not done if the nomination is withdrawn. --JeffW 03:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched on the cfd page for what you are talking about, but had no results from 'chron' or 'timeli'. You can either link it here and I'll go put the template on it, or you can do it yourself: {{cfdend}} (with the date in YYYY Month DD format and result = withdrawn). --Syrthiss 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The cfd is in here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30, but I'll make the changes. You may want to check that I did it correctly. --JeffW 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, I had the template already up in another window so I slapped it on there for you (now that I had the discussion link from you) :) --Syrthiss 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was doing cat:Timelines, but I couldn't figure out how to make the template work so could you do that one too? Thanks. --JeffW 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob, will do. --Syrthiss 15:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a category which is dire need of an overhaul, but I'd like a second opinion before starting to tag the subcategories. There seem to be two types of article in this cat and its subcats: Types of Ombudsman, and people who have held those positions. So probably Category:Ombudsman kinds , Category:Ombudsman organizations and Category:Ombudsman posts should be upmerged into the main Ombudsman category, and then Category:European Ombudsman upmerged into Category:Ombudsmans (Ombudsmen?) .

Tim! 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely "ombudsmen" [1] [2] [3]. An ombudsman is both an individual ("Tony Redmond is the Local Government Ombudsman") and the institution complete with its staff ("I wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman"), so the head category should be Category:Ombudsmen (not Category:Ombudsman). Categories of people, be they individual people or posts held by people, should be in the plural; the singularly named "main" article can happily sit in a plurally named category (compare article king in Category:Kings). The head cat should be subcategorised into Category:Ombudsmen (people) and Category:Ombudsman posts so that (if ever created) Tony Redmond can go into Category:Ombudsmen (people) and Local Government Ombudsman can go into Category:Ombudsman posts.

Category:Ombudsman organizations is for articles about organisations that represent ombudsmen such as Organization of News Ombudsmen and should remain as a subcat of the top level cat.

Category:Ombudsman kinds ought to be named Category:Ombudsmen by type to conform to normal standards of naming such subcats but it seems a little unnecessary given the relatively few articles to be organised so it's probably best to merge it up into Category:Ombudsmen (people) i.e. basically as per your suggestion.

The subcat Category:LGBT ombudsmans should probably be deleted as its only article is Gay rights in Sweden which is an article that mentions ombudsmen but is not all about them. Ideally someone should spin off an article from the gay rights article which is specifically about the gay rights ombudsman in Sweden but until such time this article is poorly categorised.

Category:European Ombudsman contains articles on individuals so I'd suggest it be merged into Category:Ombudsmen (people), which is basically what you propose.

Category:Press ombudsman is just a shell cat for Category:Press ombudsmans, so the two cats should be merged and renamed Category:Press ombudsmen; this should then be a subcat of Category:Ombudsmen (people).

Hope that's helpful. It would be good if you could come up with a less clunky name than "Ombudsmen (people) because I can't. Valiantis 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a growing backlog of requests that are not being processed. Are all of the bots down or has everyone stopped feeding work to the bots? Vegaswikian 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the only bot that was functioning was NekoDaemon, and its been down for almost a month. Pegasus had said they were going to set up pegasusbot to do the category redirect stuff, but I don't know what is happening with that (I'll go ask). All I know is I sit here from when I get home from work to when I need to go to sleep grinding cat changes with syrcatbot. FWIW, the list is just somewhat unnaturally long because we've had a few umbrella noms come through the past few days (beers, northern irish, and the transport in XXX). --Syrthiss 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus says he hasn't set up the bot to do the automated moves yet. --Syrthiss 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked user:Beland if he can put user:Pearle to work on the backlog. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the CFD policy page about revising part of the policy. Specifically, the policy for how to handle No Consensous debates does not reflect how they really are handled, and the two have been out of sync for a long time. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson has set up to start moving old day's pages off of the main CFD page and link them in a "closing in progress" section on the Working page. While this is an interesting change, I have a few problems with it.

1) IMHO the page that is currently seven days old should never be moved like this. (Apr 12th, for today). Many of the debates on this page have not yet had their full seven days. The individual debates are eligible for closure as soon as the clock passed their opening point in time, but many are still fully active.

2) For 8 days old or older, I have less serious concerns, but still concerns. It has been general unspoken policy that debates are open until the moment someone gets around to closing them. If the closings back up, giving some debates a few extra days, so be it. But now, taking the debates and removing them from the main page before they are officially closed, seems to imply that the debates on those pages are closed. More a concern than a strong opposition, this one, but it's still there.

On the positive side I can see a couple of definite benefits of doing things this way. It becomes very obvious when there is a backlog in closing debates. :) And it can help reduce the bloat on the main CFD page when we do have backlog of closings. - TexasAndroid 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree on 1, meh on 2. It would still be an implied open, just slightly less easy for the average joe on the street to come across the page and make comments. Syrthiss 19:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from on the day counts, I wasn't thinking about discussions that were missing a half day of eligibility. But keeping days around for several days because nobody gets around to closing individual debates, that's a problem, and not just because it makes the page terribly long. And I just caught an admin today that stuck his TfD on a page just about to be closed (added April 18th to April 12th page).

Keeping pages open seems wrong to me, especially where there is an explicit list of debates kept open more than 7 days (rarely used). I assume that to be added to that list, an admin has to request it (as BD2412 did once last month).

--William Allen Simpson 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I see benefits to moving pages to the working section. And in general, debates are not closed until the specific debate is closed. So even moving the page off of the main CFD page is not closing the debates, as Syrthiss comments above. It makes it slightly less easy to find, but it's still not closed until the closer adds the tags to the specific debate. So in general I'm OK with this change, with the condition that pages not get removed from the main page until they are 8 days old, not 7 days old. As for the use of the undecided page, please come join the discussion on the talk page of the CFD policy page. I've started a discussion for rewording the section that directly effects the use of that subpage. - TexasAndroid 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had a thought about one way to help deal with the current backlog in renames. The backlog is due to the lack of a bot to do the actual work, and the fact that the actual work can include moving many, many articles from one name to another. I'm starting to get a number of talk page messages from people wondering why their rename passed, but nothing has happened.

So my thought is to create a new template and category. They would be similar to the Category Redirect template, but would encourage more manual participation. Just like was doen with the category Redirect template to flag Nekobot, this template would be put in place of the CFR/CFM/etc template when the debate passes. Also the new category would get built out by the closing admin. The new template would have text something like:

This category has been approved for renaming/merging to <Newname>(linked). The rename is in progress, but all articles need to be moved to the new category. Any manual/AWB/bot assistance in making these moves would be greatly appreciated. When all entries have been moved to the new name, please come to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working and move the listing for the remane/merge to the bottom section of the page so that an admin will know to delete the old category.

This would help to let people know what the current situation is on the category, while at the same time encouraging any and all assistance in doing the actual recategorizations. If I get no objections in 24 hours or so, I'll go ahead and see about implementing this. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this (e'en though I haven't ever got pinged as to what the situation was with categories). The template text you have above looks good, and we need a similar version for deletion ("all articles need to be removed from this category"). Syrthiss 18:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, I'm surprised there wasn't anything like this already (although I guess with less backlog there was no need). the wub "?!" 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. When NekoDaemon was up and running we just marked things with CategoryRedirect, and waited a few hours for the bot to get to it. All category renames were handled that way. Emptying categories for deletion still had to be handled other ways, but there are a lot fewer highly populated categories that get deleted from those that get renamed. - TexasAndroid 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not just edit the {{category redirect}} template itself? After all, that's just what needs to be done, anyway. Just add an optional "date=" parameter to point to the debate page. Then, all we need is a new {{cfd-working}} for the deletion approved version, that points to the /Working page?

--William Allen Simpson 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As an example, I added the optional date= to {{category redirect}}, try it, you'll like it! (Did beer for Irish, British, and Netherlands as examples.)

--William Allen Simpson 07:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The cat redirect template has a different purpose. It's supposed to be for permenent redirects from one cat to another. Only supposed to be use long term on situations where the old name is likely to draw more members from people who don't know where the official category is. Where there is more than one logical long term name for the cat. The tag was placed on the cat, and NekoDaemon would regularly flush members of the redirected categories to the official names. We admins would use that flush as a way to automate the renames. The wording of CatRedir was not really appropriate to the short term renames, but since it was generally on those categories for a few hours at most, it wasn't a big deal.

Now, even with NekoDaemon gone, the purpose of {{category redirect}} remains at odds with the desired use of the new template, as a short term fix.

I also don't really want to use a date field on the new template. This is something that will need to be done over and over and over by the closing admins. I want to keep the work of changing from CFD to InProg to be a minimum. So I would like the new template to have the exact same parameters as the majority of the CFD/etc templates so it's a simple matter of swapping templates, leaving the parameters alone, to mass change over to the new template. While an optional date field does not technically prevent this, I know that I, for one, would not be inclined to take the extra steps on each changeover of adding the date to the parameter list. - TexasAndroid 13:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've started a new template over at at Template:CatRename. It's something of a hybrid of my above wording, William's wordings over at Cat-redir, and the original cat-redir. I'll give people a little time to use it before I start putting it into place on the backlog. - TexasAndroid 13:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally, I found that adding the date= was very easy (done once, select, command-c copy, command-v paste over and over), as the rest of the information for merge or rename is already in place. And personally, having the pointer to the discussion is a big help compared to WLH. I've spent an awful lot of time lately fixing up old tfd-keeps with missing parameters and such, as not all closers everywhere are conscientious about adding the required link to discussion on kept pages. (For example, Splash refuses.)

So, I'd argue for a change to the {{cfd}}, {{cfm}}, et alia to have the date in the first place, making it easier to use during debate, and easier to process afterward.

OTOH, your point about simplicity and minimal changes for closing is a good one, leading the way to a series of such templates:

• {{cfd-working}} alias (redirect) {{cfdw}}
• {{cfm-working}} alias (redirect) {{cfmw}}
• {{cfr-working}} alias (redirect) {{cfrw}}
• all easy to use and modify in place.

--William Allen Simpson 14:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the names (and will move my first draft template to the cfr-working name momentarily). My one thought is whether we really need separate CFR-working and CFM working templates. Once the new cates are built, which they will be as part of the procedure, then there's really no difference in the steps. OTOH, it doesn't hurt to have all four in existance, just have three of them redirect to the 4th. CFD obviously needs a separate one, as it need separate wording. That would give us:

• {{cfd-working}} alias (redirect) {{cfdw}}
• {{cfr-working}} alias (redirect) {{cfrw}} alias (redirect) {{cfm-working}} alias (redirect) {{cfmw}}

As for the dates, I can see what you mean by adding the dates to the original templates. I say go for it, as long as they stay optional. - TexasAndroid 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Very cool, I just did the beer and brewery markup, consists of a copy and paste creation (usually requires some fixes to sort parameters), then single letter addition to CfR→CfRw, very easy and simple! (Of course, this doesn't actually make anything happen yet, but at least the markup is simple.)

--William Allen Simpson 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Who does the merging, once its decided by an admin that the categories should be merged. The admin? Do they have some tool that makes it really easy to merge? Or are we supposed to do it? Thanks, --Urthogie 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can merge or rename or empty categories once the discussions have been decided. You can either do it by hand (I prefer a tabbed browser if I need to make a similar edit to ~10 articles), or you can use a "smart" browser like Autowikibrowser (tho you have to ask to be added to the approved userlist or be an admin). AWB has settings for emptying categories and replacing category X with category Y on every page in category X. As you can see from WP:CFD/W, we're kind of backlogged so any help is appreciated. --Syrthiss 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. I may help with that. By the way, one more question-- why is there no template for linking to an "umbrella heading" for pages that are to be merged? There's only {{cfdu}} and {{cfru}}, but no {{cfmu}}.--Urthogie 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe it has never come up before. ;) Syrthiss 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the instruction that says you're not supposed to empty a category rather than (or prior to, or at the same time as) listing it for deletion? I know I've seen it and now I can't find it. User:Attilios is currently in violation with regard to category:Forza Italia politicians. --Trovatore 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the second bullet under step 5 in part II of the instructions at WP:CFD. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This continues from this thread.

I wandered elsewhere and only now saw that Wikipedia:Deletion process doesn't seem to have any instructions on renaming categories. It looks like there has been a lot of restructuring on CFD-related pages to combat the backlog caused by the absence of CFD-bots. But even the 4 April version of the page doesn't have any category-renaming instructions as shown by [4]. -- Paddu 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added rename instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Deletion page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Outriggr emptied this category and turned it into a redirect to Category:Lists of lists. Isn't that doing an end run around CFD? --JeffW 13:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What was in Structured lists before he emptied it? It is a violation of process, tho I've only poked people before for emptying a category and THEN bringing it to CFD for deletion as a fait accompli. There's probably some dividing line that should exist, like "If you are sure that nobody will possibly complain about this category change then go ahead and do it" (analagous to page moves and all other wiki editing), but considering the work that it takes to move stuff between categories that line should stay very close to "in all cases bring to cfd". They may also not have known about CFD to know there was a process. I didn't understand categorization for quite a bit of time after starting on Wikipedia. Sooo, is there some action you would like one of us to take regarding this? --Syrthiss 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently discovered that category:Living People (note the capital P) had people in it who should be in Category:Living people (with a small p) I followed the instructions and got a friendly admin to edit the page so that the bot would go round and clear it up. I then discovered that the bot wasn't working. Since then I have periodically had a look at the category and moved across any that were in there. Is there a short term solution to this, like deleting the category, so that capital P's show up as red links in articles and are more visible? Given that Living people is a special category with a very defined purpose, having some articles in another category slightly defeats the purpose of it. RicDod 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I think we should prolly just keep the catredirect there in Living People. If/when the bots start looking for that template (hopefully I get some time and can write a bot to monitor for that), then everything will be fine. Until then, people will add "Living People" whether it has a redlink or not...and without the blue cat being there I'm not sure anyone would go and check to see there are 50+ articles in there. --Syrthiss 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Novel sequences#Rename to avoid confusion. Comments appreciated - currently it is easy to confuse Category:Novel sequences with Category:Series of books.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Process renaming

Can something be done about the name of this page since its not just for deletions, but for renames and merges as well. As it is, someone who's category is nominated for a rename can get a rather nasty shock if they don't read the notice closely enough. --JeffW 13:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second the comments above about renaming this page. This idea has been raised before, but nothing has been done. The existing name is intimidating and inaccurate. Sumahoy 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What should it be?? Georgia guy 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Categories for deprecation"? "refactoring"? "review"?

--William Allen Simpson 00:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest either two pages, one named 'Categories for renaming' and the other 'Categories for deletion' or two sections of this page, clearly distinguished: page would be named 'Categories for deletion or renaming' and the the sections named: 'deletion' and 'rename'. I think two pages would be better, less confusing. Thanks Hmains 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the process here. When a nomination is made, it can result is something other then what was nominated. So a delete could wind up being a merge or rename. Or a rename can wind up being a delete. So splitting into a delete and other page may not be the best solution. A new name, that would seem to be a easier thing to change. Vegaswikian 23:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at my propsal [below] -- Samuel Wantman 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the discussions in one place. I've made many suggestions as to possible names for this page, but the one that sticks with me is "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion". That would keep all the tags and shortcuts the same, making old edit histories continue to work. Unless there is dissent, the (American) July holiday would be a good time to make the change, as quite a few pages must be moved.

--William Allen Simpson 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see any problem with the current name. It's no wonder that a proposed deletion transforms to rename, or vice versa; that's why we have this page in the first place, for seeking the best way to act. Conscious 08:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New proposal to reorganize CFD

This page should be renamed Wikipedia:Categories needing attention. It could handle, deletions, renaming, reorganizing and restructuring. I think the process should change as well. The process should be that the category(s) get listed and the problem described. Then would come 5 days or more of discussion, until an apparent consensus emerges. After 5 days, anyone could call for consensus, and something like the current poll would happen (don't call it a vote!) There should be an emphasis on discussion first, generating alternative solutions, encouraging participation by people working on the affected articles (done in a NPOV way so it wouldn't be "vote-stacking"), looking at precedent, and defining the problem. The beginning period would not be the place to put delete or keep. And here is the big kicker to the process, ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION. If someone wants to join the discussion late, they would have to sway one of the participants through discussions elsewhere. If someone wants to leave the discussion, they could hand over their participation to a proxy. Decision making power should come from participation and contributions to the discussion. I'd like to see the same thing happen at all the xFDs, and all polls in general. --Samuel Wantman 00:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to such a process. Many/most folks can participate here only a few times per week. That's one of the reasons that discussions have already been extended from 5 days to 7+ days, and in the case of very vigorous debate without consensus (or insufficient debate to reach closure), re-listed once again.

I agree that we should emphasize discussion, and have previously proposed renaming to "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion", continuing to match the WP:CFD shortcut frequently used in edit histories and talk.

--William Allen Simpson 01:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussions can take more than 5 days, I'm just saying that there would be some set period before anyone could call for consensus. The process should also make it clear that the call for consensus only happens when a consensus is emerging. Non controversial changes often have a clear consensus after a day or two. Five days seems like more than enough for these and perhaps we need to adjust how long this period is. I should add that even there is a call for consensus, that doesn't mean the discussion is closed. Discussion would not close until there is consensus, and if there is no consensus it could continue indefinitely. At some point people will agree that there is no consensus and the discussion will become inactive. -- Samuel Wantman 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, I'd support a name change to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or the like and separate template wordings for rename, merge or delete proposals (e.g. use parser functions). David Kernow 01:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'Categories for discussion' is the most reasonable sounding of the ideas so far. It would also be nice if there were a way to avoid the unpleasantness of my recent 'Spy' category and its deletion voting--something I would have deleted myself had it been clear in the beginning that the name, if not also the concept, of the category went against Wikipedia naming/content standards. No reason to keep something open for discussion that only generates ill will, not knowledge. Thanks Hmains 03:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The recent creator of a category can always ask for speedy deletion, and the discussion will close automatically. It helps to read the instructions.

--William Allen Simpson 06:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to the reorganisation (though not a name-change). Blocking out people after a while would smack of elitism among those who visit frequently - "you weren't around last week, so you've lost your chance to make your case. We're going to make a decision soon, but you can't join in". Also, the current system (mostly) works, and I don't see much of a need for fixing it. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But that is the case at present. If you weren't around last week you missed you chance to make your case on last week's CFDs. I'm saying the process will be lengthened, and recharacterized as discussion instead of a vote. Someone coming to a discussion late could always still add their comments and perhaps sway the opinions of those that were there initially. What this would remove is the people who just come around to "vote" without participating in a discussion to reach a consensus. -- Samuel Wantman 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged each template with its umbrella, and added optional date

Now that we have parser functions, it was easy to merge the Cfd and Cfdu, Cfr and Cfru, and add similar functionality to Cfm.

Also, in accordance with earlier discussion, now at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Archive 6#Dealing with the backlog in executing renames, I've added an optional "date=" parameter. This allows the link directly to the date page, saving lookup time, and assisting finding the discussion.

--William Allen Simpson 05:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also updated /Howto.

--William Allen Simpson 06:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Further implementation issues

After spending some (many) hours looking at the implementation issues for renaming this page to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, it will take many more hours and considerable effort, as there are a considerable number of existing references and redirects. I have begun that task.

However, it will be far more difficult to rename the /Log files. The Wiki redirect doesn't work like a file link, so the "/Log/yyyy Month dd" files will not move heirarchically and automatically. There are numerous templates that reference and create the logs, and it does not appear to be practical to redesign them to reference logs in two different naming schemes at this time. The naming format is not condusive to easy sort and comparison.

Therefore, the Log files must remain under Wikipedia:Categories for deletion -- at least until the new year, when the new parser functions could implement a numeric or reasonable string comparison.

At that time, it might also be wise to begin logging by year, as in "/Log 2007/Month dd".

--William Allen Simpson 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready to roll

All the templates I could find now point to the new name, and have had time to propagate.

The next step is the move. Need a competent administrator to make the move (the page is move protected):

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Then,

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion]] {{R from shortcut}}

The most important shortcut is also protected:

• WP:CFD (edit | [[Talk:WP:CFD|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The rest are simple, and I'd recommend setting up the edits windows ready to post. Quickly do the edits to the following redirects (in order of original creation), some are shortcuts, while 3 others are {{R from alternate name}}:

• WP:CfD (edit | [[Talk:WP:CfD|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:CfD (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:CfD|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:CFD (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:CFD|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Cfd (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Cfd|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and renaming (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and renaming|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Review/Categories (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Review/Categories|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:CFR (edit | [[Talk:WP:CFR|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:cfd (edit | [[Talk:WP:cfd|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wp:cfd (edit | [[Talk:Wp:cfd|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--William Allen Simpson 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I at least like to think of myself as competent ;-) I'll get right on it. the wub "?!" 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

--William Allen Simpson 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Seems to have worked smoothly, I'm not sure if there are any other big changes to be made. Should we move the talk page archives, or just leave them where they are? the wub "?!" 09:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! I see that you managed it nicely, an edit per second. And handled many of the main policy and guidelines, too.

--William Allen Simpson 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also what about Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working? I assume we will want to move this eventually, but I don't want to break any bots. the wub "?!" 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that we could wait on /Working (and the /Archives), until my proposed January cutover for the /Log pages (above), as those really are about deletions, so I wasn't worried about the semantics. Folks are more likely to see the "discussion" and hopefully not notice that some pages are labelled "deletion" for now.

I've even figured out how to rename the /Log pages without breaking all the templates, but the parserfunction code isn't as easy and simple as just waiting until a new year rolls around. Complicated code could be error prone as future editors poke at it.

--William Allen Simpson 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved /Speedy, and am cleaning up.

--William Allen Simpson 07:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Most categories on English-language Wikipedia regarding people are gender-neutral. And for this reason we have categories (and articles too) titled monarchs instead of kings. Can all actor categories be speedy renamed, replacing "actors" with "actors and actresses"? — Instantnood 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article Actor and if you have any comments, please put on talk page. Georgia guy 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I read something the other day about there being an "empty me" page for cats that need to be emptied. It didn't provide a link to that page though and I can't find the reference now. Is there a page of cats that need emptying? While at work, I have some time for small tasks that I don't mind being pulled away from at a moment's notice, so I thought I might help out there. So where's this page full of cats that need to be emptied? Or is this done by a bot and there isn't really anything that I can do to help here? Dismas|^(talk) 00:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD/W has a section of categories that need emptying, when we have them. Cyde's bot has been doing pretty good at keeping up the backlog recently, but if there are cats there that need cleaning out thats where they would be. That page is also transcluded at the bottom of the main CFD page. --Syrthiss 11:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. Dismas|^(talk) 06:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of CfD subpage for the 19th, User:Mayumashu added a new blank heading === === just above the HTML comment "please add categories to the top". I guess the reason was to hide the comment from people discussing the first proposal, and to stop it from getting lost. It also adds an entry to the ToC. Problem is, leading and tracing whitespace is stripped from the links there, so it links to an empty anchor. Clicking sends you to the top of the page.

I find it more annoying than the problem it solves. On the other hand, if people find it useful then we should add it to the default page text. Any thoughts? SeventyThree^(Talk) 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't do much for me. I'd rather just have the people in the first discussion keep moving the comment around unless there's another workaround. Syrthiss 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a workaround to keep it at the bottom. I've looked around before myself for similar reasons, and seen several other people asking - but at the moment I don't know of a way to do it. This is an ingeneous solution, but I still don't like it :) SeventyThree^(Talk) 16:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed a change to the wording of {{cfr}} on the talk page here. Please add any comments there. SeventyThree^(Talk) 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion has diverged into the same old "what's the difference between deletion, moving, renaming, merging?" There are different templates with different descriptions. I think they are OK, but perhaps could be harmonized a bit better. I'm opposed to banging everything together into one universal template.

--William Allen Simpson 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I am directed to this page from an article, I find that is is nearly imppossible to find the proposal to change a specific category mintioned in the article I am reading. There is no search capability, no pointer to my article, etc. Can an impovement be made here? Thanks Hmains 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the archives for talk are screwed up. I've fixed the links, but User:TexasAndroid moved the old talk page to /Archive1 in January 2006, whereas previous policy moved it to /old#. see: /old, /old2, /old3; /old1 & /old0 does not exist. 132.205.45.148

The group of categories Category:Entertainers by age upon death appeared for the third time in six months on the page Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17. The discussion is now 10 days old with no disposition. Was it missed by an admin because the listing on the page is in bold but unaccountably has no link to the category? --Blainster 18:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is a backlog on processing of discusions. There are three pages ahead of that one in the queue. Apparently the editors who were doing the closing have not been around of late. I have been doing some of this, but have not been able to spend all of my time on this. As far as I know, any editor can close the discussions, the directions are in Wikipedia:Deletion process. You just need to move anything other then keep or no consensus to the correct procesing queue in Cleanup overhead. I'm leaving close votes or unclear outcomes to a more experienced editor and suggest that any new deitors here do likewise. For anything kept, the CfD notice needs to removed from the article. Vegaswikian 19:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just closed that discussion with No consensus. Vegaswikian 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expaining this. --Blainster 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reversed the order of the tables at the top of the page, so as to remove the acre or two of ugly white space that was there. If this doesn't meet with approval, feel free to revert what I've done, but I think it looks a lot neater. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that didn't work for me! It introduced 2 wide columns of white-space, and crunched the TOC into narrow oblivion! Reverted, but tried to make the recent box a bit smaller. For me, this currently shows the "Archives and Indices" as a small box at the right of the top paragraph, followed by the shortcut/deletion debates table to the right of both paragraphs. There's hardly any whitespace. The TOC is wide enough to show most headers without folding onto a second line. (Firefox 1.5.0.3 on MacOSX).

--William Allen Simpson 05:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Cfdshot.jpg

well, what it looks like now that you've reverted it is shown in the illustration on the right! It sounds like different browsers handle things differently (surprise, surprise), but this really looks ugly. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-28 FireFox screen shot File:Cfdshotff.pdf

It's been the layout for months without other complaints. Noting that your links are underlined, my guess is there's something strange in your .css? Especially as the M$ browser you are using is otherwise fairly common....

Then how come it's only been a problem in the last three days? Before that there was no white space. Something must have changed (and no, it wasn't my preferences!) Grutness...wha? 06:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing changed in the past 3 days. I've found a change to common.css about 10 days ago, but don't see how "bordered infobox with merged rows" affect recent changes (not an infobox), or {{shortcut}} (not an infobox) or {{deletiondebates}} (is an infobox). Admittedly, my CSS skills are rudimentary. Perhaps you see some connection?

--William Allen Simpson 00:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the recent discussion box? That might be the problem? The archives are already listed in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Discussions completed archives section.

--William Allen Simpson 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Browsers have to fit the data into the space the user has allocated. This means that your setting WILL affect how something is displayed. I run at 1400x1050 and still have problems with some data. Generally if you don't force font sizes and let the browser do its thing, you get something OK on all computers. The more you tinker with the settings, the more likely you are to introduce a problem for some users. Of something was in place for a while without complaints, then it changes and causes problems, that change probably needs to be reverted. Vegaswikian 18:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely a simple solution would be to limit the width of the recent discussions box. It doesn't need to be the full width of the page. If it was limited to 50% of the page width, the white space should disappear. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard for us to know, as we don't see the problem. As you can see by my screenshot, it automatically sizes itself to the text in the box. Why in the world it shows up as a full width is something in your configuration?

--William Allen Simpson 00:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, this problem's only been happening for the last few days (it was fine before that). And nothing's changed in my preferences or configuration, which is why I assumed the problem was at WP's end. Grutness...wha? 07:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section regarding Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved, as it doesn't seem to be used anymore (last edit in December). I've marked the page as {{historical}}. Also, it looks like Wikipedia:Category deletion policy needs to be updated (see, for example, recent discussion on its talk page), anyone? Conscious 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please respond to my question at Category talk:Computing output devices regarding why two votes in favour of renaming a category trumps two votes against? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Generally No Consensous. However the closer can still vote by leaning with one group. In that case it would be 60% for one option. Vegaswikian 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)