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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The new security feature for {{ categoryredirect}} has been installed. The assumption is the last edit made on the category page containing the template was made by a sysop, who intended the use of the categoryredirect template after a CFD discussion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a proposal about categories and subcategories here. Please take a look. I'd appreciate feedback. The proposal concerns the relationship of categories and their topic articles, situations when articles may be in both a category and its subcategories, and some other general guidelines for categorization. These topics have been under discussion for many months (or should I say years!) This isn't quite to the vote stage, but it is getting close. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been an alarming rise in premature and improper deletions, depriving me of my right to vote. Can this stop please? The debates are supposed to last seven days. The balance of voting may change over time. Honbicot 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Does someone have a bot that can tag all the subcategories of Category:U.S. Highway System for renaming? We have a bot to carry out the renaming, so why not the tagging? -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by that comment on a change. There are still 2 open CfMs from that date that have not been closed with a conclusion by an admin. Vegaswikian 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it safe to say that when the (prev day)..... (next day) header appears on the transcluded day that the 7 days have concluded? I'm semi new to this, and I've been waiting for the unambigious 8th day (ie closed 11th of jan today as it is now the 19th). Also, when should we remove the transclusion? I had moved a couple 7+ day logs off the page and worked on closing them earlier in the week...but a pair of discussions that I didn't get to on the pages I moved off didn't get seen / closed for a couple days (per Vegaswikian above). I noticed today that Kbdank71 was closing them on the page and waiting for them to be finished before removing the transclusion. -- Syrthiss 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
A while back I recall there being a vote for deletion of the category of people who had appeared as themselves on The Simpsons. People like George Harrison and bands like Aerosmith were in the cat. The cat was deleted. I now see a similar category of Category:Friends guest stars. I'd like to know if anyone can tell me why the Simpsons cat was deleted to see if it fits this cat as well. Thanks. Dismas| (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this page structured more like the AfD page, where you can watch specific CfDs and each CfD has its own page? It's a real headache trying to navigate through these, and it would be extremely helpful if the CfD template had a link to its particular discussion, like the AfD template does. — simpatico hi 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A category is deleted, and then undeleted. The subsequent second cfd is called "no consensus". Should the category be deleted (again) or remain? — goethean ॐ 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
HELP!! I think I may have been breaking the rules lately. I'm confused on the rules for Speedy Renaming. On the top of the rules it states "Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections.". OK, deletion of a category normally requires 48 hour notice to allow for objections. Got it. But then I read further down under criteria for speedy rename. I first read these two to mean "normally wait 48 hours, unless it falls under any of these five bullet points for criteria." Well I haven't been warned yet, but thought I should ask before I continue - I've been doing enmass moving of articles from categories listed under requests for speedy renaming, mainly (and exclusivly) moving US entries to United States. Does this moving need to wait 48 hours after the timestamp of ~~~~ on the listing request? If this is the case and I am in the wrong I apologize for any hassle I've caused and offer to take it upon my self to remove my already completed categories back to allow for proper debate. Please let me know what I should do, or perhaps if I'm doing it right currently and I'm just *really* confused. Thanks. — akghetto talk 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I nominated category:Vice Presidents who have shot people for deletion and followed all the steps I believe including clicking on the big giant "this link" to add it to todays section but it isn't showing up and I can't figure out why. Did I take a wrong turn somewhere?-- Kalsermar 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What happened to my proposed rename of this category from the 25th? I know I added text to the Categories for deletion page but now I don't see it? -- JeffW 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't save it. I'll go and redo the entry; I wanted to tweak the new category name anyway. -- JeffW 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Category:Football World Cup Squads and Category:European Football Championship Squads had been created contrary to the capitalisation convention of categories. This has since been fixed and all the relevant pages have been re-categorised under Category:Football World Cup squads and Category:European Football Championship squads. Is there any process available to speedily delete the two former categories? -- Pkchan 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just found Category:Marvel comics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) redirect, no leading colon, with {{ R from other capitalisation}}. It's been there a long time ( 2005-02-13).
So, I went looking for others with this R template. Found only:
Apparently, the hard redirect bug was fixed. Is it time to change the instructions? Should Categories be redirected the same as articles now?
I would like to propose that we create a page of specific guidelines for which types of categories should and should not be deleted. Currently people propose categories for deletion for all sorts of reasons. Each of us has our own idea about what categories belong and what categories do not belong. I propose that we create this list of criteria, based on precedent, to be used when a category is nominated for deletion or renaming. For example, one might be "Precedent R-4 -- religious category unconnected to subject matter" or "Precedent OV-1 -- Overcategorization too specific to be useful". I'd be happy to start such a list, mining criteria from previous discussions.
The way I envision this working, it would be RECOMMENDED that people would be REQUIRED to do one of three things when nominating a category for deletion or renaming:
By specifying one of these three options, the debate would be focussed and the discussion would be different for each case. In the first case, the debate would be about whether the precedent applies to the category. The second and third case would be about the merits of the new or old precedent and its implications and effects on other categories.
A by-product of this system would be that people joining the debate would have to learn about the previous precedent to be taken seriously. This might make it much easier for admins to close the debate.
I would very much appreciate hearing comments and concerns about this. As Wikipedia grows, we need some type of system to keep this process under control. Otherwise we risk burning out from repeating the same debates over and over. -- Samuel Wantman 10:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see how the word REQUIRED would raise red flags. How about saying that it is RECOMMENDED that people do one of the three things listed above when nominating a category for deletion or renaming. The initial nominator, unaware of the process, might not mention what the precedent is, but those of us that hang out on this page should try to find one, and we should use precedent to frame the debate as I've outlined above. So in a sense, we would not be adding any rules, just agreeing about how we should frame the debate. The list of precedents would have a resource that everyone could examine to keep from recreating the wheel (in many different shapes), and it would be clear if the discussion is about applying precedent or changing it. -- Samuel Wantman
Certainly, all the precedents will have grey areas, and their application to new categories will require discussion. There must be wiggle room. But with a list of precedents at least we'll have a better sense about what is being discussed. When I was new to Wikipedia, and first encountered CfD, it seemed that there was a group of old-timers that had clear criteria for what is valid and what isn't. The problem I found was that I had no idea what those criteria were, and with hundreds of precedents it is not easy to understand the reasons for people's quick and terse decisions. Now that I have joined the regulars here, I have my own set of criteria and knowledge of precedent. It would be convenient for me, and helpful to the newcomer if I could just refer to a precedent that explains the history of similar decisions. Then we can discuss whether the precedent should apply, or if a new precedent should be set. This seems like win-win for all involved, especially when precedents need changing. It is hard to argue for a change when you don't even know what precedents people are using to base their decisions. -- Samuel Wantman 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the cfd template automatically removed when an admin has closed out the discussion or is the proposer supposed to do that. See Category:People known in connection with sports and hobbies.
Not sure what's up, but it's not NekoDaemon. (For anyone who does not know, NekoDaemon is the CFD bot that automates a number of things around here.
Neko has not run since the 18th, apparently. Mostly wanted to let people know since, without Neko, we won't get out nice clean new CFD page every day automatically. I've added one for today, but we'll need to handle each day manually until we can get Neko working again. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I dropped a line on User talk:Cryptic#CfD daily request.
Would it be OK to make a /Cleanup to hold the cleanup section? That would make it easier/faster to edit and track/watch separately, like the Holding Cell section of TfD.
Is there some javascript function people are using to nominate things for cfd? I ask because where I used to see headers that were
quite often now I see
...and personally it makes no sense to me why it is piping the name. It is redundant ( Category:Living people looks the same as Category:Living people, look at my coding) and it makes some of the edit summaries horribly long for the more involved category names and renames. -- Syrthiss 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
A newbie wanted to know how to rename a category, and I figured I would just point him to the relevant section here, but after looking at this page, I can't find any newbie friendly discussions of category renaming. You guys might want to think about putting the descriptions of what CFD does and how it works in language that is more friendly to inexperienced Wikipedians. For example haivng a little more than 2 paragraphs in front of the big How To box. Just a thought. Dragons flight 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Are category renames done through cut and paste moves? This violates GFDL by not preserving history of the blurb shown in the category page apart from articles, images and subcategories. (At least I noticed that Category:Redirects from other capitalisations was created with a copy paste as the page doesn't retain any history of its past avatar as Category:Redirects for alternative capitalisation.) -- Paddu 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The new security feature for {{ categoryredirect}} has been installed. The assumption is the last edit made on the category page containing the template was made by a sysop, who intended the use of the categoryredirect template after a CFD discussion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a proposal about categories and subcategories here. Please take a look. I'd appreciate feedback. The proposal concerns the relationship of categories and their topic articles, situations when articles may be in both a category and its subcategories, and some other general guidelines for categorization. These topics have been under discussion for many months (or should I say years!) This isn't quite to the vote stage, but it is getting close. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been an alarming rise in premature and improper deletions, depriving me of my right to vote. Can this stop please? The debates are supposed to last seven days. The balance of voting may change over time. Honbicot 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Does someone have a bot that can tag all the subcategories of Category:U.S. Highway System for renaming? We have a bot to carry out the renaming, so why not the tagging? -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by that comment on a change. There are still 2 open CfMs from that date that have not been closed with a conclusion by an admin. Vegaswikian 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it safe to say that when the (prev day)..... (next day) header appears on the transcluded day that the 7 days have concluded? I'm semi new to this, and I've been waiting for the unambigious 8th day (ie closed 11th of jan today as it is now the 19th). Also, when should we remove the transclusion? I had moved a couple 7+ day logs off the page and worked on closing them earlier in the week...but a pair of discussions that I didn't get to on the pages I moved off didn't get seen / closed for a couple days (per Vegaswikian above). I noticed today that Kbdank71 was closing them on the page and waiting for them to be finished before removing the transclusion. -- Syrthiss 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
A while back I recall there being a vote for deletion of the category of people who had appeared as themselves on The Simpsons. People like George Harrison and bands like Aerosmith were in the cat. The cat was deleted. I now see a similar category of Category:Friends guest stars. I'd like to know if anyone can tell me why the Simpsons cat was deleted to see if it fits this cat as well. Thanks. Dismas| (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this page structured more like the AfD page, where you can watch specific CfDs and each CfD has its own page? It's a real headache trying to navigate through these, and it would be extremely helpful if the CfD template had a link to its particular discussion, like the AfD template does. — simpatico hi 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A category is deleted, and then undeleted. The subsequent second cfd is called "no consensus". Should the category be deleted (again) or remain? — goethean ॐ 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
HELP!! I think I may have been breaking the rules lately. I'm confused on the rules for Speedy Renaming. On the top of the rules it states "Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections.". OK, deletion of a category normally requires 48 hour notice to allow for objections. Got it. But then I read further down under criteria for speedy rename. I first read these two to mean "normally wait 48 hours, unless it falls under any of these five bullet points for criteria." Well I haven't been warned yet, but thought I should ask before I continue - I've been doing enmass moving of articles from categories listed under requests for speedy renaming, mainly (and exclusivly) moving US entries to United States. Does this moving need to wait 48 hours after the timestamp of ~~~~ on the listing request? If this is the case and I am in the wrong I apologize for any hassle I've caused and offer to take it upon my self to remove my already completed categories back to allow for proper debate. Please let me know what I should do, or perhaps if I'm doing it right currently and I'm just *really* confused. Thanks. — akghetto talk 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I nominated category:Vice Presidents who have shot people for deletion and followed all the steps I believe including clicking on the big giant "this link" to add it to todays section but it isn't showing up and I can't figure out why. Did I take a wrong turn somewhere?-- Kalsermar 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What happened to my proposed rename of this category from the 25th? I know I added text to the Categories for deletion page but now I don't see it? -- JeffW 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't save it. I'll go and redo the entry; I wanted to tweak the new category name anyway. -- JeffW 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Category:Football World Cup Squads and Category:European Football Championship Squads had been created contrary to the capitalisation convention of categories. This has since been fixed and all the relevant pages have been re-categorised under Category:Football World Cup squads and Category:European Football Championship squads. Is there any process available to speedily delete the two former categories? -- Pkchan 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just found Category:Marvel comics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) redirect, no leading colon, with {{ R from other capitalisation}}. It's been there a long time ( 2005-02-13).
So, I went looking for others with this R template. Found only:
Apparently, the hard redirect bug was fixed. Is it time to change the instructions? Should Categories be redirected the same as articles now?
I would like to propose that we create a page of specific guidelines for which types of categories should and should not be deleted. Currently people propose categories for deletion for all sorts of reasons. Each of us has our own idea about what categories belong and what categories do not belong. I propose that we create this list of criteria, based on precedent, to be used when a category is nominated for deletion or renaming. For example, one might be "Precedent R-4 -- religious category unconnected to subject matter" or "Precedent OV-1 -- Overcategorization too specific to be useful". I'd be happy to start such a list, mining criteria from previous discussions.
The way I envision this working, it would be RECOMMENDED that people would be REQUIRED to do one of three things when nominating a category for deletion or renaming:
By specifying one of these three options, the debate would be focussed and the discussion would be different for each case. In the first case, the debate would be about whether the precedent applies to the category. The second and third case would be about the merits of the new or old precedent and its implications and effects on other categories.
A by-product of this system would be that people joining the debate would have to learn about the previous precedent to be taken seriously. This might make it much easier for admins to close the debate.
I would very much appreciate hearing comments and concerns about this. As Wikipedia grows, we need some type of system to keep this process under control. Otherwise we risk burning out from repeating the same debates over and over. -- Samuel Wantman 10:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see how the word REQUIRED would raise red flags. How about saying that it is RECOMMENDED that people do one of the three things listed above when nominating a category for deletion or renaming. The initial nominator, unaware of the process, might not mention what the precedent is, but those of us that hang out on this page should try to find one, and we should use precedent to frame the debate as I've outlined above. So in a sense, we would not be adding any rules, just agreeing about how we should frame the debate. The list of precedents would have a resource that everyone could examine to keep from recreating the wheel (in many different shapes), and it would be clear if the discussion is about applying precedent or changing it. -- Samuel Wantman
Certainly, all the precedents will have grey areas, and their application to new categories will require discussion. There must be wiggle room. But with a list of precedents at least we'll have a better sense about what is being discussed. When I was new to Wikipedia, and first encountered CfD, it seemed that there was a group of old-timers that had clear criteria for what is valid and what isn't. The problem I found was that I had no idea what those criteria were, and with hundreds of precedents it is not easy to understand the reasons for people's quick and terse decisions. Now that I have joined the regulars here, I have my own set of criteria and knowledge of precedent. It would be convenient for me, and helpful to the newcomer if I could just refer to a precedent that explains the history of similar decisions. Then we can discuss whether the precedent should apply, or if a new precedent should be set. This seems like win-win for all involved, especially when precedents need changing. It is hard to argue for a change when you don't even know what precedents people are using to base their decisions. -- Samuel Wantman 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the cfd template automatically removed when an admin has closed out the discussion or is the proposer supposed to do that. See Category:People known in connection with sports and hobbies.
Not sure what's up, but it's not NekoDaemon. (For anyone who does not know, NekoDaemon is the CFD bot that automates a number of things around here.
Neko has not run since the 18th, apparently. Mostly wanted to let people know since, without Neko, we won't get out nice clean new CFD page every day automatically. I've added one for today, but we'll need to handle each day manually until we can get Neko working again. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I dropped a line on User talk:Cryptic#CfD daily request.
Would it be OK to make a /Cleanup to hold the cleanup section? That would make it easier/faster to edit and track/watch separately, like the Holding Cell section of TfD.
Is there some javascript function people are using to nominate things for cfd? I ask because where I used to see headers that were
quite often now I see
...and personally it makes no sense to me why it is piping the name. It is redundant ( Category:Living people looks the same as Category:Living people, look at my coding) and it makes some of the edit summaries horribly long for the more involved category names and renames. -- Syrthiss 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
A newbie wanted to know how to rename a category, and I figured I would just point him to the relevant section here, but after looking at this page, I can't find any newbie friendly discussions of category renaming. You guys might want to think about putting the descriptions of what CFD does and how it works in language that is more friendly to inexperienced Wikipedians. For example haivng a little more than 2 paragraphs in front of the big How To box. Just a thought. Dragons flight 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Are category renames done through cut and paste moves? This violates GFDL by not preserving history of the blurb shown in the category page apart from articles, images and subcategories. (At least I noticed that Category:Redirects from other capitalisations was created with a copy paste as the page doesn't retain any history of its past avatar as Category:Redirects for alternative capitalisation.) -- Paddu 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)