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.

Somebody has deleted all the "Suspected sockpuppet of X" and "Sockpuppets of X" categories without redirecting them; therefore, it has created a WP-wide systemic issue - all the lists of socks of a given user are gone, and the lists are important to show patterns of behavior for persistent vandals. Could this either be a) reversed, or b) wildcard redirected in all instances?

I forone think that something as important as this should have been communicated to the entire community. I personally was unaware of anything happening until it was too late. MSJapan 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I thought they were renamed? Here is the link. Vegaswikian 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there should be a redirect at the old name pointing to the new one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole point of removing the pseudo-namespace "Category:Wikipedia:" would be obviated by adding a redirect. These are administrative categories. Since MSJapan isn't an administrator, it's really not a problem.

    -- William Allen Simpson 04:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Non-admins can use the categories too. Hopefully anyone else who was caught out will notice this conversation. It probably happened by surprise because the sub-categories wern't tagged - my fault, since I didn't want to go through hundreds of them. I left a note when I nominated them, but perhaps nobody with access to a bot thought it was worth doing. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I followed the directions, but Category:Ophthalmologic inflammations doesn't show up here. It does show up at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 5, though. Could someone check my work, please. Thanks! - AED 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It should be fixed now. Nothing your fault, it's just that the entries for today weren't included on the main page yet. Thank you. - EurekaLott 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created a template, {{ Deletedcategory}} and a category, Category:Protected deleted categories, to protect categories which are deleted as being too ambiguous, point of view or unencyclopedic, and suffer recreation. The only problem I can see is that some people may still add the category to articles. I believe there are bots that run and remove categories which are redirected to other categories, and wonder if someone could add this category to their meanderings? Hiding Talk 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted this page, as it hasn't been updated since February, and doesn't seem to have been used anywhere for a long time. It also wouldn't load due to its size (133 transcluded day pages!) — sjorford ++ 11:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was originally a creation of User:Uncle G's 'bot. That's not been running since Feb. The page wasn't used here since long before that, and depended on closers to remove the old transclusions. Apparently, not the system we use here anymore....

There's still

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Current (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Current|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Log/Current (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Log/Current|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It looks like they both could be deleted, too. I stuck a {{ prod}} on them.

-- William Allen Simpson 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, cfred ( talk · contribs) says {{ prod}} isn't appropriate, so somebody please delete them, too.

-- William Allen Simpson 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, a user redesigned and repurposed this template, and I don't see any discussion about it. My understanding was that this template was only to be applied by an admin after a CFD discussion. The current wording now says the "page is being relocated by a WikiProject." Should the changes be reverted? - EurekaLott 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just saw this, but it looks like it was reverted. Sounds like a wise move. Vegaswikian 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, I partly reverted it. There were some language improvements, but mostly it was adding things to categories for this specific user. I listed the categories for deletion, too, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 15#Fabartus user categories.

  -- William Allen Simpson 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing categories

Problems regarding the commons new top down heirarchial image categories

• Apologies on that, I was trying to bring it into conformance with the way it's used on the Wikimedia Commons, and should have read through the talk... didn't realize the BOT patrols and auto-moves things here. (I'm trying to take a wikibreak on top of all that!)

I've created template:Category redirect2 to do the same task (Just warn of correct 'new category' and placehold the old name pending later deletion), but the bigger issue from the 'standpoint of the project' is the commons image categories are being deleted despite correctly showing images reflected from the commons sister-category.

Further, in email, user:AllyUnion is advising me on a BOT to tag images for automatic upload across-the-sister project databases (He says such a BOT is feasible), so copyright qualified images as we recategorize them here will begin moving into the commons as the general rule, rather than the exception (purpose of the commons, after all! <g>)... which creates even more zero pages in category situations here, or will.

Also, heirarchial 'Parent' and 'sub-parent' administrative categories ( example—there won't be a lot of such overall) will need to remain unmolested (undeleted) as the navigation links in the system. Such allow our editors to find the media they need for our articles, and the zero pages in category speedy deletion criteria is thus a dagger at the throat of all the effort to make this system work so that things are easy to find. (It also wastes the time of three of us, as I note in that link.)

Pending a 'formal project page' I'd ask that any category tagged with one of the {CommonscatX} series of templates ( temporary list pending target page {{ commonscatUsage}} completion) be off limits for speedy-deletion of such categories. I should also note, that since the images will necessarily include periodization as well as geographical and 'Old' versus 'Modern' cross-references, that human intervention will necessarily be involved for each image, hence {{ category redirect}} and it's BOT relocation is contraindicated, thus the '2' version. Best regards // Fra nkB 16:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Do not reorganize or delete categories to match Commons without bringing each and every one to CfD. We have our own well-developed and long discussed organization here. Categories are not heirarchical. And since when does "Commons" get to define/dominate every other sister project?

  -- William Allen Simpson 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • And don't make changes to templates without reading and understanding the history, and don't make any changes at all just before going on wikibreak.

    -- William Allen Simpson 03:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphan category, and I am not sure if it needs renaming (certainly) or just deletion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• If it has been empty for 4 days you can do a Speedy delete (using C1 as the reason) on it. Vegaswikian 07:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not empty, has two lists.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess you will need to nominate this for deletion. There may be a better category but I don't know of one off hand. If there is, the deletion discussion will suggest this. Vegaswikian 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19/Wikipedians by politics (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19/Wikipedians by politics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What are we supposed to do about this? Somebody who's been around long enough to know better, failing to follow the standard procedures, created a sub=page, and then transcluded it.

-- William Allen Simpson 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of the recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Working#Speedy moves, it appears that having the /Working transcluded may be confusing to some editors.

When I created it, I was following the "Holding cell" model of TfD. Only a few short months ago, there were far more TfD than CfD, but we were catching up in volume, our existing bot had stopped working, and we needed a bit of organization to help coordinate the hand-work.

Now, we have more activity than TfD, and are seeing nearly daily incorrect listings, listings in the wrong day, and (rare) listings directly in /Working.

Also, we had an earlier complaint about the floating box "Archive and Indices" up at the top. It doesn't always display correctly.

Noting that AfD has gone all the way to no transclusion, and just has a list of links to daily pages, I don't think we need to go that far (yet, and hopefully never).

I have some other ideas on how to make things cleaner and easier, but first I'd like a simple proposal, making it a bit easier to hand maintain the daily links (and perhaps easier for the bot reincarnation).

(I've checked, and there are no current or recent links to the old Cleanup overhead section heading, so it should be safe to eliminate.)

-- William Allen Simpson 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented it in incremental engineering fashion, moving the recent discussions box contents (see problems described at "Turning the tables" earlier) into a more standard list at the end of the page, and introduced a more consistent section naming:

5 Current discussions
5.1 Daily (transcluded)
5.2 Daily (transcluded)
5.3 Daily (transcluded)
...
6 Completed discussions
     
Closing in progress (link)
Recent discussions:
* Daily (link)
* Daily (link)
* Daily (link)
...

Archive and Indices (link)

-- William Allen Simpson 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks!

An editor has come to AfD to announce that s/he has finished work on Category:Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear. I think you people wanted it deleted when empty. If you'd like to check it over, I think it can be deleted. If it can, and you've not got an admin handy, drop me a line and I'll do it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been tracking down all the stray links, but Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup still shows up in Category:Wikipedia articles of unclear importance and Category: Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear. Checked all the obvious templates that might be doing it, but can't seem to find the culprit. A cookie to whoever can. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the page has been renamed, can we brainstorm some ways to stimulate consensus through discussion rather than just having a poll. I'm thinking about a few things:

• Differentiate between simple discussions and complicated controversial one. The difficult ones could have a longer well defined process.
• Boilerplates for helping with the longer process
• Having facilitators to help direct the process if it is at all controversial. The facilitors (the admins who now close the discussion) would start at the beginning of the process and only comment on the process and help move the discussion towards consensus.
• Put off the start of polling until there is an emerging consensus, and make it clear that it is a test for consensus.
• Only close controversial discussions that actually reach consensus. It seems like it might be better to keep the discussion going than have the discussion be reborn over and over.
• Rewrite the instructions for the page to reflect the importance of discussion.

These are just a few ideas. Can we start a discussion?

As I was cleaning, I noticed a significant number of old nominations that were tagged months ago. In some cases, they were leftover from previous nominations (the closer forgot to remove them), or were not properly affixed (for example, adding {{ cfm}} to both categories, or {{ cfm}} to one and {{ mergeto}} or {{ mergefrom}} on the other).

However, I've found a large number where the template was added to the page, but never added to the daily discussion. Probably because the article space templates don't have that requirement.

I propose that we take a page from AfD and the new Deletion Review, and use {{ subst:cfd1}}, {{ subst:cfm1}}, and {{ subst:cfr1}}.

The revised templates could have a big "click here", and that would automagically add the {{ subst:cfd2}}, {{ subst:cfm2}}, and {{ subst:cfr2}} to the discussion page, using the &preload as was cleverly done at Deletion Review.

I'm going to play with {{ subst:cfm2}}, as it doesn't yet exist, to provide a working example. That will help make the discussion here more concrete, and provide testing before mucking with the others.

-- William Allen Simpson 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, yes. Another good set of ideas. Thanks Hmains 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

new nomination preload not yet possible

For posterity, I thought I should mention that my first attempted magic didn't work. Turns out that "&section=new&preload=template:cfd2" will work (putting them at the bottom of the daily page rather than our current practice at the top), but I could not figure out how to preload the section subject/headline with the category or umbrella name. The &default= from the Inputbox extension didn't work for me, and I couldn't find any other documentation.

Besides, tradition here is to add them at the top of the page. So, my magic trick below was my somewhat less perfect solution to the problem.

-- William Allen Simpson 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NEW NOMINATIONS

OK, for my first successful magic trick, I added a NEW NOMINATIONS section at the top of each daily page, and changed THIS LINK on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto (and the Cfd, Cfm, and Cfr templates) to "action=edit&section=2". This should speed new listings and reduce edit conflicts on busy days, as the subst:cfd2 (or cfr2) into this tiny new section will always result in a new section just below itself.

Of course, this is something that could/should be removed after concluding each day. The (currently non-working) Templates for Deletion bot edits its previous day page after creating the current day page, and I'm sure we can handle the minor edit until we get a new bot, too.

However, as the THIS LINK edit is by day and section number, it won't hurt to leave them there until somebody gets around to it.

-- William Allen Simpson 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't this be hidden? It isn't an item for discussion, but it looks like one. As you know I removed it because I thought it was an error or vandalism. Osomec 04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

template:cfmf

Template:Cfmf is nominated for deletion on TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_2#Template:Cfmf. This is the category counterpart to the article template:mergefrom. I rather think it is useful, and should be kept. Ccccccccccc 07:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

template:oldcfd & template:oldcfd2

template:oldcfd & template:oldcfd2 have gone up for deletion at WP:TFD. Shouldn't we actually be recording our discussions onto the category talk pages, as Articles for Deletion do? It would seem to be a rather importatnt process consideration. Ccccccccccc 08:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to actually read the processes, before making comments upon them....

Template:Cfmf ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was proposed long ago by a new IP-only user, but never documented nor used over the past year.

There already exists a {{ cfdnotice}} for the rare instance where {{ cfm}} needs a "counterpart".

Likewise, {{ cfdend}} is the documented technique for recording decisions.

Thank you for your interest.

-- William Allen Simpson 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems as thought the "new IP-only" (exactly why "new"?) user created the first version of the CfD policy page as well, or atleast what the archive histories show.

Still, "oldcfd" is the intuitive counterpart to "oldafd" unless you're more active in the TfD process. So it should redirect to "cfdend" since "oldafd" and "oldvfd" are named in that manner.

As for cfdnotice - this is not a specific mergefrom notice. There probably should one one, or cfdnotice should be modified so that it can use a variable to decide which kind of text to display... such as a specific merge notice.

Ccccccccccc 10:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Beland nor Rossami nor Grendelkhan appear to be IP-only users.

Only folks active in the CfD process should be closing discussions. Folks that don't read and follow the policy aren't expected to close discussions. (heavy sigh)

Also, Template:Oldvfd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Oldafd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) were retired long ago.

We have no real need for a "counterpart" to {{ cfm}}, as there are no merge histories for categories. The listings just move automatically. I would object to yet another step required for merging categories, or more modifications to {{ cfdnotice}} to make it "special" for merging.

It would be helpful for you to actually read the processes, before making comments upon them....

-- William Allen Simpson 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think it would be a good idea to notify category users that someone wants to merge things into their category, so that they may be able to offer insight as to why that might or might not be a good idea, hence a mergefrom counterpart. Ccccccccccc 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

...and where's the consensus? -- kingboyk 09:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Reorganizing_CfD above... -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ProveIt ( talk · contribs) has been innovating on the nominations, listing only the original template in the section heading on merging/renaming, instead of both templates. Then, the proposed merger starts immediately after the heading.

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 1#Category:Buttonquails, and many others.

Under the current nomination format, when the target is changed during discussion, all the links to the section stop working.

I'd like to adopt the ProveIt innovation. Easy template changes, although probably not exactly the same resulting format.

-- William Allen Simpson 06:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Obviously I like to do it that way. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How come when I type WP:CFD in the "go" box it opens the page in a new window? None of the other pages do this...I don't know if browser type is an issue here but I'm using Opera. Recury 03:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems with FireFox on MacOS. Stays in same window.

-- William Allen Simpson 03:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't do it in IE on PC either, strange. Also I should have said "new tab" instead of "new window." Recury 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a nomination, but a question/discussion item:

In Category:People by ethnic or national descent, there are mostly sub-categories named 'People of Foo descent'. In Category:Emigrants by nationality, there are mostly sub-categories named 'Foo emigrants'. Looking down further into these sub-categories, they are both populated with sub-sub-categories named 'Foo Goo', where 'Foo' is the origin country and 'Goo' is the destination country. Examples: see Category:People of Canadian descent and Category:Canadian emigrants, having Category:Canadian Americans, Category:Canadian Australians, etc. Sometimes, in the matching sub-categories, the sub-sub-categories are the same; more often, there is partial or even no overlap.

Should there be either be categories named 'People of Foo descent' or 'Foo emigrants', but not both? Is there some naming decision somewhere that states what we should be using? Was the decision never implemented or, worse, partially implemented? What is happening here? Thanks Hmains 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's a terrible mess, and eventually there will be some consensus on naming conventions. But most of them shouldn't even be populated, and we've slowly been deleting the obvious bad ones. Not that folks cannot make new ones even faster, but as we build the record here, it makes it possible to do speedy deletion as recreation. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day....

-- William Allen Simpson 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of unresolved CFDs from June 2006, for example, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 28. Could an admin please close these? -- M @ r ē ino 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

HA! You think it's bad here, you should look at TfD! Folks are out of town and on break. Anyway, for those of us with even short memories, this isn't anywhere near as bad as it has been in the past. That's why we added the action list for "closing in progress" on /Working, as folks were losing track.

-- William Allen Simpson 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone can close CFD debates, not just admins. Simpson who already replied, is one of the regular closers, and he's not an admin. The only place admin powers are needed is the final step of actual deletions or renames, where the category needs to be actually removed. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working, where the closing work is done. Keep in mind a couple of things that are standard for closing any XFD: 1) If you are involved in the debate, it's likely a bad idea to close it yourself. 2) If you close a controversial debate, be prepared to take the heat from the debaters on the opposite side of whatever way you close. - TexasAndroid 15:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks to several folks, but in particular Conscious ( talk · contribs), we've got them up-to-date!

However, there's a qualifier on TexasAndroid above, there are Wikipedia:Deletion process strict rules about what a non-administrator can close, although it's written from an AfD perspective. Cannot handle controversial debates at all! Technically, not supposed to handle deletions or renames. And any administrator can reopen your closing.

Thus, I try to stick to closing empty categories, keeps (or no consensus to delete), and renames with overwhelming consensus. You'll see my edit histories with "closed obvious and easy". Even then, somebody wiki-lawyering like SPUI will take you to Wikipedia:Deletion Review.

Therefore, before trying closing as a non-adminstrator, I suggest you watch regularly, look at past closing by others, and discuss for weeks. I did.

-- William Allen Simpson 18:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a technical adept fix it please. Chicheley 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not disappeared here. Perhaps you are behind a cache that hasn't refreshed in 10 hours. Page transclusions (there are 8 of them here) aren't always updated in the caches. No need to be technically adept, just read the instructions....

Did you click the clearly labeled link "Purge the cache to refresh this page"?

-- William Allen Simpson 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For the past few weeks (see #Clearer nomination process), I've been experimenting with subst'able templates that add the date automatically, among other things. I'm confident that they work reasonably well:

• Template:Cfd1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfm1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfr1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unlike AfD, they do not result in massive subst'd template HTML CSS cruft all over the page. Instead, they just make our current templates with automated and sometimes fancier parameters than most folks seem to do by hand.

Since our process uses a 1 week period, after a week or so, everything should have moved painlessly to having a date, and a direct link to the daily page.

Warning: {{ subst:cfd}} without the 1 does not work well, it makes a horrid mess, much like {{ subst:afd}}. I've always disliked cleaning up after an AfD.

In short,

1. smart folks use {{ subst:cfd1}} instead of {{ cfd}}, etc.
2. the regular {{ cfd}} will continue to work as usual.
3. the old {{ cfdu}} will be deprecated.

Any objections to making these the standard instructions at /Howto?

-- William Allen Simpson 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hearing none, I've updated the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto. I also cleaned up the language and display a bit.

-- William Allen Simpson 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this page might not be better renamed to "categories for deletion". Every other page where rename/delete decisions are made, are called "Articles/templates/Images/whatevers for deletion", even if they involve discussion (as they always do).

Would it help users if CFD was renamed to standardize it too? FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "Discussion" because merges etc. are also conducted here. Not sure though, doesn't make much sense to me either. -- tjstrf 04:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, you'll read the rest of the talk page before denigrating the great effort that it took to move from "for deletion" to "for discussion".

-- William Allen Simpson 04:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Denigrate" means to minimize something or disrespect it. Disrespect is not visible in any of the above, nor intended, and if you got that impression then it wasn't intended. The question was an honest one, because standardization can help people who are new. By contrast lack of civility help nobody. I know it took effort. I'm just wondering if its really helpful to newcomers. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been around for a long enough time to have read the rest of the talk page, and maybe even looked at the archives running back a year, where newcomers (and even old hands) have complained about the title "deletion" for discussions about merges and renames. Indeed, there was a previous effort to split into 2 or 3 separate pages, with a long discussion that resulted in Speedy Rename section.

Before we made the change, I checked all the history, checked all the redirects and merges pointing here, and their histories, too. Pointless speculation without research and understanding is not helpful.

-- William Allen Simpson 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My question was more, that CFD and AFD seem to be themed similarly. In each case, merges and redirects and many options are considered, including deletion of the current page. The inconsistency that one is titled "deletions" and the other "discussions" seems odd, especially given that other identical themed pages are all called "deletion" even if a significant part of their content is discussion and consideration of merges and other options.

Coming back to your points, I did read the page, and re-reading it, I can't think how I missed the recent discussion, so I accept the criticism. I'd have preferred it said more civilly another time if that'd be okay.

I think the question's valid for reasons above, and it should not be responded in this tone even if was mistakenly redundant in light of recent discussion. AFD and CFD don't differ in approach, that one would be better as a "deletion" and the other better as a "discussion"... the titles still seem slightly anomalous.

Much appreciated. With thanks. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed that Category:Categories for renaming is overloaded with old stuff that was actually kept. I just removed old CfD notices from Xyzian-Americans categories, now working on various companies based in US... but the category has more than 800 entries in it... Renata 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a job for a bot. Which one, I'm not sure of. -- tjstrf 04:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We've noticed, a long time ago. That's one of the reasons that dates were added to the templates, and I've proposed just a few sections up to convert to a subst'd version that automatically adds the date.

And don't forget to add the {{ cfdend|date yyyy Month dd}} on all the Talk pages of those you clean up!

-- William Allen Simpson 04:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

hi, i listed this

Category:Death by carbon monoxide poisoning to Category:Deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning

and got a support comment. it's been 48 hrs, so now what? does an admin or bot make the change? thanks. J. Van Meter 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer is: yes (to both). Please have patience, there's really no hurry, and folks are doing their best to keep up.

-- William Allen Simpson 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks so much for the reply. no hurry. never gone through this process before and was just concerned that there was something else that I was supposed to be doing. J. Van Meter 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the same question as J. Van Meter above. Could you add a "part IV" to How to use this page that explains what happens once a CfD is made? Doesn't have to be long, e.g. "Once you have submitted a CfD, no further action is necessary on your part. The suggestion will be posted and votes will be made supporting or opposing the proposal. If the proposal is supported, an admin, automated bot, or combination of the two will make the necessary edits and ensure that the change is populated to all affected pages." Or whatever. Thanks! Bookgrrl 01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion, Bookgrrl: It would be a good improvement here. J. Van Meter 12:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I added that just under Step 3, with other hints. I wasn't sure it warranted a "step" of its own. I moved all the instructions (finding a number of duplicates) into the /Howto page.

-- William Allen Simpson 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fabbo, thanks :) Bookgrrl 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is now using Template:Year Month Day from day offset ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and should adjust to the next day without intervention.

Use the link at the top to purge the local cache for those times that an old version is stuck in an apache or squid cache. This has happened from time to time ever since the change to daily subpages, and is not related to this change.

I am still generating the daily pages by hand in advance, as the template is not subst'able. I've written code for Mediawiki to handle offsets, but it has not yet been accepted. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6692 and http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6693.

I am still updating "Closing in progress" each day, and removing the previous day's NEW NOMINATIONS section.

-- William Allen Simpson 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should change back. This is totally unreadable.-- Mike Selinker 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, not my fault! I see that Splash ( talk · contribs) and then Freakofnurture ( talk · contribs) destroyed this page, too. Thanks to The Wub ( talk · contribs) and Syrthiss ( talk · contribs) for trying to fix it.

So we have agreement that we only want 7 days listed, with the recent 7 days listed below?

And what happened to Centralized discussion? That's been on this page as long as I can remember!

-- William Allen Simpson 21:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#William Allen Simpson trying to make CFR a vote -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

moved from Template talk:Cfd2

SPUI's edit seems to have been vanquished, but I will reiterate what I have said elsewhere: The Cfd template is often useful for situations where "this category is rubbish, we need to rescope it or merge it into something else or just plain delete it (oh, and if you really do want to keep it, it still needs to be renamed)" that degenerating it into a keep vs delete thing (with all the horrid prospects of vote-counting) is not the wisest of ideas. TheGrappler 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case, you would be making another kind of nomination (we have templates for them: cfm2 or cfr2), instead of a delete nomination. Procedural discussions do not take place on the Cfd page.

However, for those that actually read and follow instructions, I'll move the action part inside the text= parameter, allowing folks that are so much smarter than the rest of us to easily rephrase in any form.

-- William Allen Simpson 01:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the sorting this out. I've been reading and following those instructions for a long time but WP:CFD is definitely "Categories for discussion". Not all nominations are clear-cut. I don't want "delete" to appear at the front of all my comments automatically if what I am trying to see is "I have found a badly designed category, perhaps it should be merged somewhere though I honestly can't think where, or at the very least renamed (potentially to X, although that would involve a partial rescope) but unless somebody can think of something better to do with it, I'd suggest deleting". Similarly, it is disingenuous to stick on a "cfm" or "cfr" tag and end up with a deletion decision - I think if there is any ambiguity or chance foreseen that deletion will ensue, then cfd is the better tag. Applying cfr with the comment "Rename to Z but I wouldn't mind seeing this deleted", for instance, is bad form in my book. Therefore it makes sense to apply the cfd tag in instances of uncertainty. TheGrappler 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As the person that organized the change from "for deletion" to "for discussion", I happen to agree in principle.

However, the /Howto has long specified that your nomination should start with "Your vote", and I also agree with that, too. Closers have far too little time to try to divine your intent. The discussion part is for other participants, not the closer.

Also, nebulous nominations -- "I think we should talk about this" -- are not appropriate at Cfd, and are often speedily closed (or just removed).

Moreover, "a badly named category" is anything not specified in the Naming conventions (a policy), and should be deleted by default.

Finally, it is not "disingenuous" (that means lying) for the nominator to want a merge or rename, but others decide to delete instead. I do agree that "I wouldn't mind seeing this deleted instead" is bad form.

-- William Allen Simpson 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Copying my comment from ANI) Because of the vagaries of the category system, CFD tends to work in a very different way to the other deletion pages. There tend to be more complicated discussions, often involving blanket changes over several categories, and there are a wide range of possible outcomes. This is the reasoning behind the recent name change. However as far as I can tell these templates are intended for cases which the nominator believes can be resolved simply, and in those cases these templates are a time saving measure. This does NOT in any way prevent anyone else from suggesting alternatives, at any stage in the process. Nor does it prevent the nominator from using a more "customised" nomination message if it is felt appropriate. the wub "?!" 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the old versions (pre July 23) without the extra data and to make clear what the nomination is for. The current rename is totally confusing. Having to search to find the target does not seem to be a good move. These are discussions and the results can be different then suggested, but that fact should not force us to use confusing nomination headings. Vegaswikian 02:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate the presentation of a CfD discussion with "lc" template. When people use it, it takes a fairly clean and organized discussion and makes it unreadable. I suggest it not ever be used on this page.-- Mike Selinker 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the changes make the page more difficult to scan. It would have been nice if the changes were discussed here before they were implemented. - EurekaLott 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Failing anyone supporting it, I think the "lc" template should be changed so this page can be returned to readability.-- Mike Selinker 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to wait longer before reverting to a version before the changes or can it be done now? Vegaswikian 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not been around this week (I'm rarely around on weekdays), and "Freakofnurture" trying to make CfD look more like TfD rather bolluxed my changes. I do find lc useful, as otherwise it takes several clicks to get to the category history. But since others don't want it, I'm removing it.

-- William Allen Simpson 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are still not back to the old version that was Category whatever to Category whatever 2. Vegaswikian 05:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I left it on Deletion requests, where it doesn't seem to be in the way. I also tried to make the missing parameters more descriptive.

-- William Allen Simpson 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at {{ cfr}} and it's more then I want to chance messing up to restore it back to the old format. Vegaswikian 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing today's nominations ( Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 26) I suddenly realised various votes and a section of the page was missing; I've just reinstated them. There may be other votes/sections still missing. Is something broken somewhere?  Hoping it's not my sanity, David Kernow 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, if you look through the history for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21, you can see there were at least three times that I had to re-add comments that got deleted. I'm sure the deletions were inadvertent, but something must be a little screwy if it is so easy to accidentally lose big chunks like that. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • It turns out yesterday's glitch was simply an editing error, with no harm done. As to July 21, however, I'm no wiser. Regards, David 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A User has just removed an entire nomination: here. This is totally unacceptable behaviour. I request that an Admin reprimands them. -- Mais oui! 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This was done in error, and I have already apologised elsewhere. A Mais oui was aware when the above was written, it happened because Mais oui! made a CFD for a category, the subcats of which I just nominated for CFM: see my CFM nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:British_female_MPs]] and Maisoui's subsequent CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Removal_of_Category:British_female_MPs

Unfortunaately, because the nominations were made on the same day and with the same title, Mais oui's nomination took over the link to the CFD, which is why it appeared that the CFM had been overtwritten: all links led instead to the CFD.

For more info on how this arose, see my apology an explanaton at User talk:Mais oui!#Vanadalism:_desist_now, and the discussion at Category talk:British MPs#CFM_for_national_subcats_of.

This user has described themself as "aggresive" (see User_talk:Mais_oui!#Mmmmm.....), and this is the second time in lately two weeks that a CFD nomination I have made ahas elecited a strange response which has disrupted the CFD process. -- BrownHairedGirl 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Above has a CfD tag on it but I cannot find a related discussion. The page history has only one entry also which has me confused. Can anyone help? -- I@n 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag, which seems to have been placed there by mistake. The category was recently created as the result of this discussion, and the tag should not have been copied to the new category. Thanks for pointing it out. - EurekaLott 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Preteen Wikipedians has been blanked. The userbox? Dead. Everyone on the list? Wiped. We had a contact system going, this is terrible. There is no explanation. Someone just wiped us. Tell us why! User:Wizkid357/Wiki Preteen and discussion page. Tell us. We want it back. We were effectavly gaining members and we're using the catagory to help recruit and gain contact with our preteens. I, for one, want it back. Thank you. Julz

The category was deleted after this discussion. Because of the discussion there, an admin ( User:Drini) decided to delete the template used for the userbox. You can discuss it with him, or post comments for all admins to see on this page.

BTW, if you want to create a link that points to a category, you have to use a colon ":". For example, [[:Category:Preteen Wikipedians]] will create Category:Preteen Wikipedians -- Samuel Wantman 07:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Twice in the last two days, editors have made counterproposals to CFD nominations as separate CFD nominations. Yesterday, we had the dueling British female MPs nominations, which are now a total mess and will likely end in no consensus (and that may have been the intent of the second nomination). Today, in response to the British doctors merger nomination, another user made the reverse nomination. Splitting discussions this way only leads to confusion and increased difficulty for the closing admin. I don't think it's spelled out in the guidelines, but I think we should immediately close discussions of proposals that contradict other nominations as WP:POINT violations. Thoughts? - EurekaLott 14:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi EurekaLott, thanks for that intersting proposal. I'm the editor who made the original nomination for British female MPs, so I guess I may be taken to have a partisan view on this.

This is is the second time in a fortnight that something similar has happened to me: in Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies, I made a nomination to which another user (the same one involve in British female MPs) added a bunch of what I considered to be extraneous sub-categories of another category, leading to an edit war :(

Out of all this, I feel that existing procedures are too lose: they can lead to confusion, and are open to abuse. So I suggest three things:

1. That as you propose, counter-nominations should be immediately closed, but I would go a little further. I would add that if they use the same link, that an admin should change the link on the counter-nomination to avoid confusion, and add that as a basic principle any category shold be the subject of only one open CFD at a time.
2. That once a nomination is made, it should not be modified. I can see situations where that might cause difficulties when the nominator had not made their intentions clear and wanted to clarify things, or where the nomination was internally inconsistent or incomplete. But rather than go through the confusion caused when nominations change, the procedure should be to withdraw the nomination and start again.
3. The two above rules combined might cause difficulties when there is a need for a proposal to be option to be consdered which was not part of the original nomination. In that case, an admin should close the CFD and create a new one combining the two options.

Hope this makes sense. -- BrownHairedGirl 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some clever person recently moved this from deletion to discussion a while back, but failed to migrate the templates and how they link to subpages. That should be considered, if the name is to stick - Ste| vertigo 10:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't recent, and this was considered "a while back". There's no problem, the templates work reasonably well. The naming convention for the daily page makes it difficult for a parser function to select between "deletion" and "discussion" for a daily page, until the year change. When we get closer to the new year, we'll discuss whether it's worthwhile.

-- William Allen Simpson 14:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just nominated Category:Actors that portrayed heroes or villains for deletion, and I think I followed the process outlined in this article. However, the output of the cfd1 template on the category page includes a link to add the discussion at the categories for deletion page. I hope I'm making myself clear; take a look at Category:Actors that portrayed heroes or villains and you'll see an "add entry" line, and a "maintenance" line above that, which don't appear to be necessary. Am I right in thinking this is out of sync with the instructions at WP:CFD? Seems too me the instructions should either say to delete the link in the template once you've created the discussion, or the link shouldn't be in the template in the first place as the instructions explain how to create the discussion. I'd also be glad of an explanation of the "Maintenance" line. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new user, you forgot to use the leading colon "[[:Category" in your question above.

Sorry, no, you are not right — the instructions are perfectly in sync. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto gives generic instructions. The template display details specific instructions for that particular request, facilitating copy and paste.

As the /Howto instructions clearly state:

• Preview before saving. The display will give more precise instructions about the next step.

DO NOT delete lines in templates, that would affect display everywhere!

As to the Maintenance line (I did not originate that), it appears to help debugging and shows the date of the request. Note that Wikipedia:Maintenance is about cleaning up ancient requests.

-- William Allen Simpson 08:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Template:Cfdu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Template:Cfdud ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

are ready to be deleted. They have been superceded by

• {{ cfd|optional umbrella section|date yyyy Month dd}}

-- William Allen Simpson 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

William, is there an update to How to use this page regarding the use of this? I thought I ran across your link to the discussion on this, but maybe this is all there is. Syrthiss 14:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was done long ago. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto at "If a group of similar categories, use an umbrella nomination:"

-- William Allen Simpson 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Except thats talking about cfd1 not cfdu. Are they just the same template with different names? Syrthiss 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, {{ subst:cfd1}} takes the optional umbrella parameter, and adds the subst'd date, and outputs {{ cfd}} with all the correct parameters. Its purpose is the includeonly tags that make the subst'd date work.

There is no need for {{ cfdu}} and {{ cfdud}} (cfdu with positional date parameter that never actually worked). They are not compatible with the current {{ cfd}} named date parameter. They must be deleted, not redirected.

Heck, I'm not sure there was ever a need for cfdu, but maybe in the distant past before default and named template parameters were added to wikimedia software. Recently, new parserfunctions made it a no-brainer.

-- William Allen Simpson 11:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What happens if a category has two "delete" votes after two days? Can it be deleted? How do I go about alerting an administrator to delete the category? (I'm referring to Category:WikiProject EastEnders by the way) Trampik e y ^{( talk to me)( contribs)} 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Generally, no, it needs to have seven days, just like any other category, the exceptions being empty categories and speedies. You never know who will oppose a deletion, when they'll do it, or for what reason. -- Kbdank71 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't know it had to be seven days! Trampik e y ^{( talk to me)( contribs)} 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of the subcategories within Category:Fictional characters by nature are based almost entirely on POV, and I'm not really sure how to go about addressing the issue. Would anyone more experienced be willing to help me? -- Chris Griswold 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is re: the aftermath of the switch of Category:Singles by artist to Category:Songs by artist, which resulted in the creation of a Category:Foetus songs with no parent categories. I've temproarily subcategorized it under Category:J. G. Thirlwell albums, the home of Category:Foetus albums, among others ( J. G. Thirlwell is the musican who records as Foetus as well as other pseudonyms).

This temporary state isn't right, because songs are not subcategories of albums. I figured that I could either create a new Category:J. G. Thirlwell and place Category:J. G. Thirlwell albums and Category:Foetus songs as subcategories, or nominate to rename the current Category:J. G. Thirlwell albums to simply become Category:J. G. Thirlwell. Which would be preferable? -- Rynne 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See: Filipino people by ethnic or national origin The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of having this discussion page when a result of 'no consensus' means that one editor can proceed to delete all the categories that were being discussed? Does 'no consensus' mean do what whatever you want to do to delete cats and force some other editor to revert all the deletes? Thanks Hmains 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There may have been no consensus, but the fact still remains that the categorizations of those people in those categories is still inaccurate and not in accordance with the criterion outlined in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage. And I quote "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." Many of these people were categorized in this way. Others were categorized by a drop of blood, as in the case of the Philippine President and the Philippine national hero. Please note that I did not delete the categories, but the categories will be eligible for speedy deletion after four days. The issues had to do with the actual articles themselves and not the categories per se. -- Chris S. 05:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of disagree with that move myself. Sometimes, though, consensus (or lack thereof) doesn't mean jack here. Chris was right in one respect: it was the articles in question, not the categories. If you can populate them correctly, they'll stay. -- Kbdank71 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So if you don't like the result of the articles for deletion voting, just go do it yourself? The deleting editor made no effort to research any facts or allow others to research them. The article contents remain the same, saying the person was of 'such and such ethnic background'. The deleting editor simply decided on his own that the article information was invalid and proceeded to make mass deletes of all articles from their ethnic/national origin categories. This is not trying to improve WP by fact finding and discussion; it is simply mass destruction of the work of others. I have no facts to counter what this editor did; I just think that the material in these and every WP article should be taken as 'true' until proved otherwise. And that this 'true' information be the basis of categorization of articles until, or if, the material in the article has been changed by normal WP processes. What other possible basis can there be for assigning articles to categories other than the content of the articles themselves? Do we each just add and delete categories for articles on our own whims? Thanks Hmains 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion states:

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

Is it reasonable to expect that the same process should take place here, with respect to maintenance categories? (also posted to Wikipedia talk:Category deletion policy). -- nae' blis 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD seems to be getting really bogged down recently on fixing up user categories. I suggest that it is not worth it, and that our time is better spent dealing with encyclopedic content. User categories don't really matter that much anyway. If one is messed up, I would say just deleted it. Don't spend the time trying to figure out the exact right name for it. -- Cyde Weys 04:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

While the attention to user categories may be a bit of a distraction from more encyclopedic concerns, on the whole, I think it's a positive effort. If left unattended, the user categories would likely resemble the userbox morass, packed full of unfunny in-jokes and other nonsense. User:Cswrye has prepared a set of proposed guidelines for dealing with user categories. If accepted, it would make dealing with these categories much easier. - EurekaLott 04:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, Cyde, and I've thought about it myself. There are different philosophies about user categories, ranging from people who think that they are a waste of time and should be done away with completely to people who think that they should be allowed to do whatever they want with them. My own philosophy is that they do have value, but only if there are some boundaries to provide some consistency in how people use them. That's what my proposal is all about. I've used these categories in the past to help me find people who can assist me with articles, and I'm sure that they can have value to others as well. In any case, there was a bit of carelessness in developing these categories in the past (most of which has been resolved since the German userbox solution, so I see the current user CFDs as being a temporary thing. Mike Selinker has been doing a great job sorting through them, and once we have gone though them, future CFDs for them will probably be much rarer. -- Cswrye 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we maybe establish a process separate from CFD to handle user categories? Cydebot is choking to death on user categories. pyWikipediaBot was only ever written to handle categories in articles. -- Cyde Weys 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to agree with Cyde here. Either leave them the way they are or offload them to a non-cfd area. I've found myself manually making a lot of these moves because the bots can't handle them. -- Kbdank71 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Same, I tried to AWB my way through a bunch of them yesterday while working on other things...and ended up having to do a bunch by hand (which I can't do while working on other things). I don't mind trying to unify them, but maybe a separate process would be beneficial. Syrthiss 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that this was causing problems with the bot. Is it just the number of categories being nominated at once, or does it have something to do with the categories themselves? We can slow down on the number of nominations if it's causing that much of a problem. I wouldn't mind creating a separate process for Wikipedian categories. Just keep in mind that this will be a temporary process (we hope) while we are correcting the existing categories. Once most of them are renamed, they will probably just be nominated one or a few at at time instead of the mass renamings that we are doing now. -- Cswrye 00:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)