An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Roman Catholic jurists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka ++ 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess it's time to nominate the rest. I hope to get to that later today. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_3#Category:Druze_surnames saying "Per discussion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country". How do you deal with the argument that this is not a "by coutry" but a "by ethnicity" category? This argument has been mentioned by more than one person in the discussion, and I am frankly surprised by your decision to delete. But most of all, I am worried by the precident your rationale is creating. Debresser ( talk) 12:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the CfD and removed the tag on this category on July 16, but I see it has still not been renamed. Is a bot going to get to it in due time, you think? thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks like consensus to rename. Can you take another look at it? Thanks. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why were all the Malayalam-language films removed from all the Malayalam-language films by year categories? Do you know? Carlaude: Talk 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking care of the two recent Macedonia-related CFDs. Since you called consensus in favour of WP:NCMAC but, in some sense, against WP:NCCAT, perhaps it would be useful to have your input at the discussion at WT:NCCAT, about how to ultimately align the two guidelines. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to begin by thanking you for changing the 'Northern Irish' categories to a 'from Northern Ireland' it is something that has annoyed me about the UK categories for quite a while, however there are several more 'Northern Irish' categories on Wikipedia and I was wondering if as a result of the discussion can I change, can you change or does there have to be another discussion to change the rest? Here are a few examples: Category:Northern Irish Protestants, Category:Northern Irish Anglicans, Category:Northern Irish Baptists, Category:Northern Irish Evangelicals, Category:Northern Irish Methodists, Category:Northern Irish Elim Pentecostals, Category:Northern Irish Presbyterians, Category:Northern Irish paramilitaries amongst others. Thanks.-- Chromenano ( talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you closed this as delete, why hasn't it been deleted yet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on your closing comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15#Category:Films_feautring_orphans, I have nominated Category:Films by topic for deletion. Please do weigh in, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
While you were closing this as Keep. I was closing as a rename with a long explanation. Any objection to my changing the close? Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Preface: As another user who closes CfDs, I know how much of a pain doing so can be when there are inquiries and second-guessing afterwards. I trust you know that I understand the situation you're placed in as a close and my intent is not to harass or give you a hard time ... Content: I'm not sure if this close was such a good idea. There is quite a—what shall we call it?—movement currently underway to replace "Northern Irish" as a "nationality" in category names and replace it with some variety of "... from Northern Ireland". From a personal standpoint, I don't understand the problem with using "Northern Irish" and I wouldn't usually have any qualms about your close or Alansohn's reasoning, except for the fact this decision will be out-of-line with some fairly consistent and repeated consensus decisions over the past few months to make this type of change. I'm not asking you change the decision—just to, as the DRV instructions put it—"reconsider". Or at least give you a chance for input. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed the action taken at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_27#Category:Fads and it appears that there was no consensus for a deletion. Please review this and see if it was deleted in error.-- The lorax ( talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 2#Category:Proponents of 9.2F11 conspiracy theories, in which consensus for retention was turned into a rename. The issues regarding WP:OC#OPINION were considered and rejected by overwhelming consensus. I'm not sure what exactly a conspiracy theorist does for a living, but there are certainly those in the category who have not theorized any conspiracies regarding September 11, but whose role as a proponent of conspiracies theorized by others is a defining characteristic that falls into the "activist" label described by WP:OC#OPINION. Alansohn ( talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn ( talk) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Xdamr,
The renaming of Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists has reignited a dispute in the 9/11 subject area that seemed to be settled for some time. I am not sure whether the debate will be any more constructive than previous ones.
Creating a category with a name that most people reject as a self-description tend to lead to a situation where BLP of people that basically no-one is defending are left in the category, regardless of whether the inclusion is justified or not. Once Holocaust deniers, long-standing conspiracy theorists, some of which did not show particular interest in 9/11, and other such people are populating the category, the implicit BLP issues, as perceived by editors, are growing even more serious. "9/11 Conspiracy theorists" leaves open the question whether a mere opinion is sufficient for inclusion, while "Proponents of..." implies active advocacy.
As an alternative, one could create a category such as Category:9/11 Truth movement activists, based on participation in the 9/11 Truth movement. This would more clearly define who should be in the category and who should not be. For example, Charlie Sheen is clearly an active proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but he is not taking part in the 9/11 Truth movement (at least such activism is not evidenced by reliable sources). Do you think such a category, which could also be a sub-category of Category:Activists might be helpful?
Cs32en 08:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why this name was chosen when no sources use it. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a pity you closed the discussion so promptly as I did not get the chance to reply to the last comment made. The last comment was "I think those fall under "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form"". This was precisely my argument that LAMDA was "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form". Cjc13 ( talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
How did you come up with "The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Governors-General of Malta to Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta." ????
Zero people voted for the "Governors and Governors-General of Malta" option while two of us asked for "Governors of Malta" !
Please relpy on my page. Thank you. Carlaude: Talk 05:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It seemed to be the only option which obviated the concerns expressed by all participants wrt categorising Governors as Governors-General or vice versa. Having said that, and digging around a bit more in the Governors/Governors-General tree, it does seem a bit of an inelegant solution. Speaking personally, I would have little problem with the Governors-General having their own categories and being placed directly in Category:Governors-General, thereby enabling a rename for the Malta category to include only Governors. Xdamr talk 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(...I thought consensus was a benevolent dictator ... ) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the description of the speedy tag itself, anyone can remove the speedy nom, yes? I did so, and would ask that you please leave it removed. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note on Category:Fads. I declined the speedy because A3 only applies to articles. Perhaps you meant C1? If so, the correct tag would be {{ db-catempty}}. HTH -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Xamdr, just so you know, you didn't completely resolve this discussion when you closed it - part of the nomination was what to do with Category:Gundam Wars itself, but your closure doesn't mention it at all. Thanks in advance for your attention, regardless of how you handle this! ^_^ 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 18#Category:Free game modification tools with a merge, which I can agree with. However, the original category still exists: Category:Free game modification tools. Is this a delayed reaction of Wikipedia, or was it forgotten, or did the category-delete script screw up? -- DanielPharos ( talk) 11:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I sounded grumpy about the nomination of {{ cl}} at tfd - it was the sight of WP:SFD littered with "this template has been nominated..." stickers which annoyed me. I agree that finding some way of keeping cl off headers at CFD would be a good thing 9and it shouldn't happen if people are following the template instructions when they use {{ cfd}} and {{ cfr}} (although these are a pain when you're making a group nom, I must admit). I can't see any point in the {{ cat}} template, though, so perhaps that one should go... Grutness... wha? 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you were neither queried about your close nor notified of the DRV. Eponymous rapper categories. Apparently you're super-voting again. <rolleyes> Otto4711 ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You were right and I was utterly wrong. I have reverted myself now after looking at each article. Guess I was in a rush and didn't really read it, or think about it! I will remember to look a bit closer next time. Oh well, everything fixed now. Thank you for letting me know. Best regards, Woody ( talk) 13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Roman Catholic jurists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka ++ 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess it's time to nominate the rest. I hope to get to that later today. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_3#Category:Druze_surnames saying "Per discussion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country". How do you deal with the argument that this is not a "by coutry" but a "by ethnicity" category? This argument has been mentioned by more than one person in the discussion, and I am frankly surprised by your decision to delete. But most of all, I am worried by the precident your rationale is creating. Debresser ( talk) 12:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the CfD and removed the tag on this category on July 16, but I see it has still not been renamed. Is a bot going to get to it in due time, you think? thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks like consensus to rename. Can you take another look at it? Thanks. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why were all the Malayalam-language films removed from all the Malayalam-language films by year categories? Do you know? Carlaude: Talk 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking care of the two recent Macedonia-related CFDs. Since you called consensus in favour of WP:NCMAC but, in some sense, against WP:NCCAT, perhaps it would be useful to have your input at the discussion at WT:NCCAT, about how to ultimately align the two guidelines. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to begin by thanking you for changing the 'Northern Irish' categories to a 'from Northern Ireland' it is something that has annoyed me about the UK categories for quite a while, however there are several more 'Northern Irish' categories on Wikipedia and I was wondering if as a result of the discussion can I change, can you change or does there have to be another discussion to change the rest? Here are a few examples: Category:Northern Irish Protestants, Category:Northern Irish Anglicans, Category:Northern Irish Baptists, Category:Northern Irish Evangelicals, Category:Northern Irish Methodists, Category:Northern Irish Elim Pentecostals, Category:Northern Irish Presbyterians, Category:Northern Irish paramilitaries amongst others. Thanks.-- Chromenano ( talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you closed this as delete, why hasn't it been deleted yet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on your closing comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15#Category:Films_feautring_orphans, I have nominated Category:Films by topic for deletion. Please do weigh in, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
While you were closing this as Keep. I was closing as a rename with a long explanation. Any objection to my changing the close? Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Preface: As another user who closes CfDs, I know how much of a pain doing so can be when there are inquiries and second-guessing afterwards. I trust you know that I understand the situation you're placed in as a close and my intent is not to harass or give you a hard time ... Content: I'm not sure if this close was such a good idea. There is quite a—what shall we call it?—movement currently underway to replace "Northern Irish" as a "nationality" in category names and replace it with some variety of "... from Northern Ireland". From a personal standpoint, I don't understand the problem with using "Northern Irish" and I wouldn't usually have any qualms about your close or Alansohn's reasoning, except for the fact this decision will be out-of-line with some fairly consistent and repeated consensus decisions over the past few months to make this type of change. I'm not asking you change the decision—just to, as the DRV instructions put it—"reconsider". Or at least give you a chance for input. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed the action taken at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_27#Category:Fads and it appears that there was no consensus for a deletion. Please review this and see if it was deleted in error.-- The lorax ( talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 2#Category:Proponents of 9.2F11 conspiracy theories, in which consensus for retention was turned into a rename. The issues regarding WP:OC#OPINION were considered and rejected by overwhelming consensus. I'm not sure what exactly a conspiracy theorist does for a living, but there are certainly those in the category who have not theorized any conspiracies regarding September 11, but whose role as a proponent of conspiracies theorized by others is a defining characteristic that falls into the "activist" label described by WP:OC#OPINION. Alansohn ( talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn ( talk) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Xdamr,
The renaming of Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists has reignited a dispute in the 9/11 subject area that seemed to be settled for some time. I am not sure whether the debate will be any more constructive than previous ones.
Creating a category with a name that most people reject as a self-description tend to lead to a situation where BLP of people that basically no-one is defending are left in the category, regardless of whether the inclusion is justified or not. Once Holocaust deniers, long-standing conspiracy theorists, some of which did not show particular interest in 9/11, and other such people are populating the category, the implicit BLP issues, as perceived by editors, are growing even more serious. "9/11 Conspiracy theorists" leaves open the question whether a mere opinion is sufficient for inclusion, while "Proponents of..." implies active advocacy.
As an alternative, one could create a category such as Category:9/11 Truth movement activists, based on participation in the 9/11 Truth movement. This would more clearly define who should be in the category and who should not be. For example, Charlie Sheen is clearly an active proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but he is not taking part in the 9/11 Truth movement (at least such activism is not evidenced by reliable sources). Do you think such a category, which could also be a sub-category of Category:Activists might be helpful?
Cs32en 08:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why this name was chosen when no sources use it. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a pity you closed the discussion so promptly as I did not get the chance to reply to the last comment made. The last comment was "I think those fall under "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form"". This was precisely my argument that LAMDA was "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form". Cjc13 ( talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
How did you come up with "The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Governors-General of Malta to Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta." ????
Zero people voted for the "Governors and Governors-General of Malta" option while two of us asked for "Governors of Malta" !
Please relpy on my page. Thank you. Carlaude: Talk 05:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It seemed to be the only option which obviated the concerns expressed by all participants wrt categorising Governors as Governors-General or vice versa. Having said that, and digging around a bit more in the Governors/Governors-General tree, it does seem a bit of an inelegant solution. Speaking personally, I would have little problem with the Governors-General having their own categories and being placed directly in Category:Governors-General, thereby enabling a rename for the Malta category to include only Governors. Xdamr talk 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(...I thought consensus was a benevolent dictator ... ) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the description of the speedy tag itself, anyone can remove the speedy nom, yes? I did so, and would ask that you please leave it removed. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note on Category:Fads. I declined the speedy because A3 only applies to articles. Perhaps you meant C1? If so, the correct tag would be {{ db-catempty}}. HTH -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Xamdr, just so you know, you didn't completely resolve this discussion when you closed it - part of the nomination was what to do with Category:Gundam Wars itself, but your closure doesn't mention it at all. Thanks in advance for your attention, regardless of how you handle this! ^_^ 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 18#Category:Free game modification tools with a merge, which I can agree with. However, the original category still exists: Category:Free game modification tools. Is this a delayed reaction of Wikipedia, or was it forgotten, or did the category-delete script screw up? -- DanielPharos ( talk) 11:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I sounded grumpy about the nomination of {{ cl}} at tfd - it was the sight of WP:SFD littered with "this template has been nominated..." stickers which annoyed me. I agree that finding some way of keeping cl off headers at CFD would be a good thing 9and it shouldn't happen if people are following the template instructions when they use {{ cfd}} and {{ cfr}} (although these are a pain when you're making a group nom, I must admit). I can't see any point in the {{ cat}} template, though, so perhaps that one should go... Grutness... wha? 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you were neither queried about your close nor notified of the DRV. Eponymous rapper categories. Apparently you're super-voting again. <rolleyes> Otto4711 ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You were right and I was utterly wrong. I have reverted myself now after looking at each article. Guess I was in a rush and didn't really read it, or think about it! I will remember to look a bit closer next time. Oh well, everything fixed now. Thank you for letting me know. Best regards, Woody ( talk) 13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)