Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Category:Pages for discussion
After the recent renaming of Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion we now have a major break in the category tree. Please see that category talkpage Category_talk:Pages_for_discussion for my proposal in relation with this issue. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no (major or minor) "break" in the tree. I have little or no interest in opinions, we deal in facts and process here. Section renamed.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion
There is a deletion backlog at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll add that I did modify the template to indicate that Speedy C1 should not be user to bypass CfD. So maybe this backlog is the result of administrators taking note of that warning. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've always been a bit wary of deleting these, since I don't know how to verify that the category has actually been empty for the relevant four days. I know this has been discussed at WT:CSD, and I don't remember anybody providing a reliable guide, other than checking on a regular basis. Otherwise you just sort of have to trust the tagger. So, this is one of the areas I don't feel confident in, and with the admin tools you don't want to be operating where you're not on solid ground.--Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with you. Even though I participate at CfD and read most of the discussions, I avoid the C1 speedies since I could never be sure that they are there because someone followed the process. It is a big loophole. The only solution I see is to take this to SD for a discussion to remove C1 and replace it with an expanded speedy rename at CfD. That way it would at least have a few people looking at the nominations. If a category is empty, there is no need to delete it on sight. Waiting a few days does no damage. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I usually go to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories if I feel like deleting empty categories. Specifically, I go a the prior update, like this one: [1], that was from at least 4 days ago and start deleting empties from there. It's not fool-proof, but I at least know that what I'm deleting was empty 4 days ago. --Kbdank71 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- But that does not mean that it was emptied following process. That is a big concern in my mind. I have asked a question on this at the talk page for WP:CSD. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps not the CFD process, but it does follow the CSD process. Unfortunately, unless you know what article may have been in the category, there is no way to find out. Perhaps we can convince the devs to come up with a solution, like being able to search for articles that were in a particular category or something. --Kbdank71 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was talk a couple months ago about turning the C1 template into a dated template similar to PROD. It looked like we had consensus to make the change, but it wasn't made. It's still an option worth considering, IMO. - Eureka Lott 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- That helps with the 4 days empty, but it does not help with users bypassing CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was talk a couple months ago about turning the C1 template into a dated template similar to PROD. It looked like we had consensus to make the change, but it wasn't made. It's still an option worth considering, IMO. - Eureka Lott 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps not the CFD process, but it does follow the CSD process. Unfortunately, unless you know what article may have been in the category, there is no way to find out. Perhaps we can convince the devs to come up with a solution, like being able to search for articles that were in a particular category or something. --Kbdank71 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- But that does not mean that it was emptied following process. That is a big concern in my mind. I have asked a question on this at the talk page for WP:CSD. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I usually go to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories if I feel like deleting empty categories. Specifically, I go a the prior update, like this one: [1], that was from at least 4 days ago and start deleting empties from there. It's not fool-proof, but I at least know that what I'm deleting was empty 4 days ago. --Kbdank71 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with you. Even though I participate at CfD and read most of the discussions, I avoid the C1 speedies since I could never be sure that they are there because someone followed the process. It is a big loophole. The only solution I see is to take this to SD for a discussion to remove C1 and replace it with an expanded speedy rename at CfD. That way it would at least have a few people looking at the nominations. If a category is empty, there is no need to delete it on sight. Waiting a few days does no damage. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've always been a bit wary of deleting these, since I don't know how to verify that the category has actually been empty for the relevant four days. I know this has been discussed at WT:CSD, and I don't remember anybody providing a reliable guide, other than checking on a regular basis. Otherwise you just sort of have to trust the tagger. So, this is one of the areas I don't feel confident in, and with the admin tools you don't want to be operating where you're not on solid ground.--Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Outdent) I think Vegaswikian has a good point: Kbdank71 and EurekaLott both have valid procedures for ensuring that the category has mostly likely been empty for four days. However, I would also be worried about users bypassing CfD. Is there a way to check what, if any, articles have EVER been in a category? I guess you could manually go through previous database dumps, but that would be really laborious and not worth the time. Anyone have any better ideas for ensuring that it hasn't been a victim of a CfD end-run?--Aervanath (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only solution I have been able to think of is to eliminate C1 from speedy deletion criteria. I have started exploring this option there. If a proposal like mine would get adopted, we would move the categories from speedy deletion to the Speedy section in CfD. While it would not fix the problem, it should alert admins and editors to emptied categories. I will note that I left some notices on the talk page of an admin who has been deleting empty categories, even those being discussed at CfD! Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- How would deprecating C1 solve the problem? I don't see how it would stop people from bypassing CFD by manually renaming categories. The main difference I see is that the original category would remain, and since many of the people doing manual renames are inexperienced, there's a decent chance the old category would wind up as a hard redirect. Also, empty categories are frequently tagged with the {{db}} template instead of of {{db-c1}} (typically with some note explaining why the editor thinks the category is unneeded), and eliminating C1 would not stop that practice. - Eureka Lott 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It would not eliminate all out of process deletions, but it would hopefully reduce them. I don't know how to get around the {{db}} issue, but if we drop C1 and C2 as some have suggested, we could have the CSD guidelines modified to say that {{db}} is not to be used for categories with a pointer to whatever we use to replace it. That should at least put admins on notice that categories don't belong in CSD for any reason. Editors would still tag, but admins would not generally delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- How would deprecating C1 solve the problem? I don't see how it would stop people from bypassing CFD by manually renaming categories. The main difference I see is that the original category would remain, and since many of the people doing manual renames are inexperienced, there's a decent chance the old category would wind up as a hard redirect. Also, empty categories are frequently tagged with the {{db}} template instead of of {{db-c1}} (typically with some note explaining why the editor thinks the category is unneeded), and eliminating C1 would not stop that practice. - Eureka Lott 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only solution I have been able to think of is to eliminate C1 from speedy deletion criteria. I have started exploring this option there. If a proposal like mine would get adopted, we would move the categories from speedy deletion to the Speedy section in CfD. While it would not fix the problem, it should alert admins and editors to emptied categories. I will note that I left some notices on the talk page of an admin who has been deleting empty categories, even those being discussed at CfD! Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not as familiar with C1, as I've been recently active in bringing empty or near empty categories to CfD. And given that there seems to be a (new in late 2008) Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories mentioned by Kbdank71 above, maybe C1 could be eliminated. Certainly, it should be dated! But C2 was vital for keeping down the CfD load even back in the days when that load was small compared to today. And C2 should be dated, too!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Re-populating categories
Category:Fast Folk artists was previously deleted, but was then relisted at CFD after a deletion review. The CFD resulted in keeping the category (see the CFD); however, the category is still empty. I'm not sure how to go about re-populating it automatically, since I'm not too familiar with the technical aspects. Is CydeBot the only bot that does this? If there are other bots, how do you figure out which one it was? And then, can the bot be easily programmed to undo it's edits removing the articles from the category, or is that something that interested editors have to do manually? I'm asking on behalf of an editor who posted to my talk page, thinking that I would know because I closed the latest CFD. (Gosh, thinking that an admin actually knows something; boy, does he have a lot to learn!) Thanks in advance for educating me, --Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The best strategy I know is to look at a page you know was in the category before, figure out who depopulated it, and run through that editor's "contributions" from that period. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at who deleted it. If it was Cydebot, it is most likely him that did the emptying. If it was me, then it was either me (via AWB) or my bot User:Kbdankbot. I think Cydebot can automagically undo his edits. I have to do mine and my bot's manually. I think most other people use Cydebot for emptying as well (citation needed for that, of course). --Kbdank71 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] oldcfdmulti?
Do you folks think there's a need for a {{oldcfdmulti}} template? The page exists, but just as a redirect to {{oldafdmulti}}, which doesn't allow for links to CFD archives. I just combined the four old discussion templates in use at Category talk:Fast Folk artists, but I used {{multidel}}, because I'm unaware of another template that would work. It functions, but it lacks the sophistication of {{oldafdmulti}}. Is there a better way to list multiple deletion discussions on category talk pages? - Eureka Lott 04:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't use oldcfdmulti myself, I just keep adding new {{Cfd result}}s under the old ones. No problem with getting rid of the redirect. I like multidel very much, and I don't know of anything else that accomplishes that. I think I'll start using it. --Kbdank71 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can't use oldcfdmulti, because it doesn't exist. :) I was wondering if there would be much benefit or demand for creating it. - Eureka Lott
- I don't think there are all that many categories that have been through as many discussions as Category:Fast Folk artists, so there's not much demand for it. Might as well make {{oldcfdmulti}} redirect to {{multidel}}.--Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can't use oldcfdmulti, because it doesn't exist. :) I was wondering if there would be much benefit or demand for creating it. - Eureka Lott
[edit] Question about info on category pages
Background: I created {{catdesc}} to help solve the problem of category documentation/description. It was nominated for deletion; no-one but me saw any use for it (not that there were significant numbers wanting it deleted either), so it's now officially being deleted (although there's a deletion review for it). It is nonetheless already transcluded on a lot of pages, and if it is to be deleted, then these transclusions will be converted with a script.
The Question therefore arises: if such conversion takes place, what of the information that this template generates should be kept, and what should be discarded? Obviously the parent categories defined in the template need to be retained, and personally I would have thought the useful information provided for readers would stay too. What about the information on the categorization scheme intended for editors (the bit in the collapsible box) - should it stay or go?
(Please have a look at some of the transclusions from the list linked to above to understand what this is about. See here for some technical discussion. Of course, if you think the template might still be useful - even if not exactly in its present form - then please say so at DRV. A possibility might be to userfy it while further development takes place. Or someone might have a totally new idea on how to solve this problem. But the above Question is the one that needs answering most immediately.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely the parent categories need to be kept, I have no opinion on any of the other information. --Kbdank71 14:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Use Undo for each template instance, returning everything to the state before the template. By hand. That should keep Kotniski out of harms way for awhile. Heck, I'd say no other edits allowed until he's done....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Use Undo for each template instance, returning everything to the state before the template. By hand. That should keep Kotniski out of harms way for awhile. Heck, I'd say no other edits allowed until he's done....
-
-
-
-
-
- 700+ categories that consist only of a template header probably deserves deletion of both that template and the category.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- 700+ categories that consist only of a template header probably deserves deletion of both that template and the category.
-
-
-
[edit] Question about changes for closed discussion
Not sure if this is the right place or not, but the Subclasses of Flower class corvettes discussion closed on 16 June as "rename all". Usually, the changes are made quickly after a close, but I notice that is not the case here. Is there a backlog of changes that need to be made or did this one maybe slip through the cracks? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes there's a lag with the bots. It looks like I listed it properly at WP:CFDW when I closed it, although I've never seen the CFD bots let the backlog go for four days before. Don't worry, it'll get taken care of as soon as the bots get to it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't missed. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I removed and readded these but the bot is still not processing them. Not sure why. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed them; they should process now. (The bot won't process them unless there is a target category. In this case there were only target articles.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. You don't know how many times I looked for the obvious there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Somebody slap me with a fish, please. I can't believe I made such a n00b mistake. :) --Aervanath (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. You don't know how many times I looked for the obvious there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed them; they should process now. (The bot won't process them unless there is a target category. In this case there were only target articles.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I removed and readded these but the bot is still not processing them. Not sure why. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't missed. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Displeased with changes to Category:Surnames
I only found out about this after the decision was made, but basically despite notable CfD opposition, every single Surname by X Nationality category was deleted, dumping over 14,000 articles into the basic Category:Surnames. I agree that confining surnames by nation-state is a clumsy way to go about it, but dumping over ten thousand articles into a base cat was ludicrous. If you feel that Category:Iranian surnames cultivates a false sense of unity, go ahead and divide it into Category:Baloch surnames, Category:Persian surnames, etc. Now anyone wanting to categorise by culture as opposed to "nation" has to comb thgrough 14,000 articles. In short, I feel this was a ludicrously drastic move pushed by a fringe element of "nationality is a fiction" biased persons, which undid thousands of hours of labour. Yes, "nationality" is a somewhat artificial way to categorise cultural aspects, being that cultures transcend borders, but but hundreds of surnames could be generally agreed to be "Japenese" instead of "Welsh", and compeltely wiping cats rather than sorting was a terribly hasty move. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The CFD has been appealed, and is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_25. Please comment there.--Aervanath (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Help request
I've just come across Category:Political corruption and Category:Corruption, and this seems like a big problem of overlap here. The Corruption disambiguation page essentially points at Political corruption - the other senses are more synonyms of other meanings. Certainly looking at the category contents, it's hard to see why not to merge. But how to do this? I've never done this. Help, anyone? Disembrangler (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, see Wikipedia:Cfd#How_to_use_this_page; it provides instructions on how to nominate categories for deletion, renaming, or merging. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- "If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page)..." I'm asking for help. It's a complex nomination and I've never done even a simple one. Disembrangler (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand you correctly that you want to merge Category:Political corruption to Category:Corruption? Or are you trying to do the opposite, merging Category:Corruption to Category:Political corruption? Either way, those would be single merges, not umbrella nominations, so you don't have to worry about the more complex instructions. Or have I misunderstood your intent?--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well this is one of the problems - I'm not entirely sure what to do; I just see a mess that needs cleaning up. Category:Political corruption is currently a subcategory of Category:Corruption, but Category:Corruption overlaps contentwise 100% (I think) with the meaning of "political corruption". I suppose Category:Corruption should be merged into Category:Political corruption, to match the political corruption article. But equally, "political corruption" is probably not the best title for that page anyway - "political corruption" is vague and not normally used and on some definitions would exclude parts of that topic. Maybe corruption should be moved to corruption (disambiguation), and political corruption to corruption, and merge the cats to match? NB I've left a note at talk:political corruption, and pointed here. Disembrangler (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Many articles lie within the scope of Corruption and outside that of Political corruption. Ponzi scheme, Insider trading, Shell (corporation), Securities fraud, Enron scandal and War profiteering are examples of corruption that lie within the field of business, with the latter being more political and such as Whitewater controversy and Sixteen words being more political still. There is far more to the scope of Corruption than merely politics. Moreover, these are excellent categories and obviously many more articles could be listed. My only regret is that I cannot think of a synonym for corruption. Anarchangel (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well this is one of the problems - I'm not entirely sure what to do; I just see a mess that needs cleaning up. Category:Political corruption is currently a subcategory of Category:Corruption, but Category:Corruption overlaps contentwise 100% (I think) with the meaning of "political corruption". I suppose Category:Corruption should be merged into Category:Political corruption, to match the political corruption article. But equally, "political corruption" is probably not the best title for that page anyway - "political corruption" is vague and not normally used and on some definitions would exclude parts of that topic. Maybe corruption should be moved to corruption (disambiguation), and political corruption to corruption, and merge the cats to match? NB I've left a note at talk:political corruption, and pointed here. Disembrangler (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand you correctly that you want to merge Category:Political corruption to Category:Corruption? Or are you trying to do the opposite, merging Category:Corruption to Category:Political corruption? Either way, those would be single merges, not umbrella nominations, so you don't have to worry about the more complex instructions. Or have I misunderstood your intent?--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- "If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page)..." I'm asking for help. It's a complex nomination and I've never done even a simple one. Disembrangler (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion - 7/2
Can a few admins look at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion? Looks like someone ran a bot to dump a bunch of entries into here. Looks like some were upmerged as underpopulated. Not sure why others are here, but I don't have the time to dig right now. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Open backlog
In my opinion, may of the discussions that are still open and awaiting closing have consensus. However many of the regular closers have participated in the discussions so they should not really be involved in the close. So if any other admins see this, could you please review the these open discussions and close those with a consensus? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
