Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 21 May 2009

Archives
c. July – December 2004 c. December 2004 – May 2005 c. May – September 2005 c. October – December 2005 January – 4 April 2006 April – June 2006 June – August 2006 August 2006 – January 2007 2007 2008 2009

• WT:CFD

Extension to seven days

Given that Afd has been extended to seven days (see Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days) does anyone object to lengthening the term here to seven days, due to the same reasons?--Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What were the reasons? For the vast majority of CfD discussions, I don't see much discussion after 3 or 4 days, let alone after 6 or 7. Good Ol’factory 07:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, to quote the summary of the discussion, "to gather more opinions and because some people can only access Misplaced Pages on weekends." I think you're right that most CFDs don't last much beyond 3 or 4 days. However, some do, and more might if we stopped closing them after five days. The canonical example was given by the editor who started the thread at WT:AFD: an editor can only edit on Saturday and Sunday. On Sunday night, a category he is interested in gets nominated for CFD. Five days from then is Saturday. Depending on when he logs on, he may never find out about the CFD until it's over. CFD being one of the lower-traffic deletion areas, one more opinion can make the difference in a discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable in theory. I don't object, though I don't know if in practice it will in fact have much of an effect. Good Ol’factory 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, for consistencies' sake. –xeno 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, policy has to come naturally without the need of having to always doublecheck all detail. Therefor consistency is paramount. Agathoclea (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, if AFD takes seven days, so should CFD: some DRVs of category decisions complain that CFD is a "hidden" process anyway, so having a CFD process that is quicker than AFD is difficult to defend. Bencherlite 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Mild support. Seems like a reasonable idea for consistency' sake and for the theoretical editor who can only edit once per week. Not sure if it will change much in practice, but I suppose it has little if any cost so it's worth doing. Good Ol’factory 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but certainly not to play "follow the leader". There are so fewer people at CFD that dropping it to five days "for consistency with AFD" made zero sense (nor does it make sense to do this for no other reason than consistency now). Granted, this will not stop people from complaining at DRV, and it won't make a bit of difference for over 90% of the CFD's, but it will allow people who only show up once a week to contribute. --Kbdank71 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. There is no need for any "Rush to Judgment" here. (sdsds - talk) 03:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As there is no opposition, I'll go ahead and make the change. If anyone has a good reason why this shouldn't happen, feel free to revert me. --Kbdank71 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Using Archive as Means to Squelch Debate

Archiving this "discussion". Nothing positive happening here now, "debate" or otherwise. Time, I think, for everyone to move along before the accusations of bad faith and the like end up becoming more disruptive, and thus possibly getting someone blocked. - jc37 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I find it interesting that debate of a category for which deletion has been suggested has been terminated by archival activities. This is both a pity, and a dirty trick. Can't stand the heat? William R. Buckley (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What discussion is this in reference to? Good Ol’factory 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess this, seeing as William edited almost nothing else in the last five days. Is that correct? --Kbdank71 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My but aren't you the perceptive one. It is not true that I have edited only this discussion. See that which occurs just below, on the page you suggest. You are another anonymous editor, aren't you? You have lots of opinions but not the nerve to specify your identity. I suggest that being anonymous editor is the act of a wimp. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My but aren't you not. Note the word "almost", which means "very nearly, all but, slightly short of, not quite, nearly", in other words, the vast majority, but not all, of your edits, were to that discussion. As for the discussion I closed, it had devolved into, as I said in the close, bickering, which did nothing to further whether or not to keep the category. Again, if you want to continue to argue, do it elsewhere. --Kbdank71 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks to be a good spot to continue the discussion. Moreover, I was not the only person so disposed to such continuation. Further, you hide from the point I made, in the opening statement of this current discussion. Clearly, you are one who can't stand the heat. Instead, you hide from the point respecting elitism. I suggest you are an elitist. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, this is where I bow out of the discussion, as I have no interest in the category in question. And you can suggest anything you want, because I have no interest in your opinions either. You might want to watch your civility, though. Good day. --Kbdank71 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By my reckoning, the posts were more evenly divided between the debates for HBHS and Deep River (?). William R. Buckley (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, elitists are all over the place on Misplaced Pages. Good Ol’factory 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Satirical comment, that is funny 'cause it's true, but is OK because it has been labeled "satirical" On the nature shows, the lion's tactic is to identify and select the weakest antelope for attack and consumption. This is basically the same approach followed at CfD. Once the weak category in a structure has been identified and the pack has pounced and had it deleted, then it's off to the races using the first result as "precedent", demanding that all categories, similar (or not) to the prior case, must be deleted. Which follows the same logic as the lion insisting that all the other antelopes in the herd must willingly succumb to being eaten as the gimpy, undernourished, weakest-link member of the group had already been devoured. While the antelopes wisely choose to ignore the demand, we at CfD are expected to believe that consensus cannot possibly change under any circumstances, and that any results differing from the demanded result are aberrant "anomalies". WRB, welcome back to the neighborhood! Alansohn (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, the real questions is whether or not the lions are elitists. Good Ol’factory 06:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You obfuscate the topic, and hide your identity. I claim there are three types of people: sheep, wolves, warriors. I am, as it appears too is Alansohn, a warrior. Rare we are, warriors. William R. Buckley (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh good—another warrior. Good Ol’factory 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, where do you fit in the hierarchy? William R. Buckley (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Halfling. Can throw rocks well, but have never been able to use a crossbow. High charisma but a relatively low number of hit points. Enjoys honey meads and cheese plates. Good Ol’factory 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, low hit points will make you a prime target for roaming wolves and warriors. Although your light weight means you can ride a sheep to safety. --Kbdank71 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How little you know of wolves and warriors. Sheep eat grass; wolves eat sheep. Warriors, eat them both. Wolves are also characterised by hiding in the bushes, a cowardly act taken by neither sheep nor warrior. Thank you so much for identifying your membership in the wolf class. William R. Buckley (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, you're going to eat me? I guess my time here is limited. Darn. Can I call you Wolfeater, then? Great! Look, Wolfeater, I have to go now, I mean, playing D&D with you here has been entertaining, but there is some actual work that needs to be done. --Kbdank71 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I simply note that you are a child, hiding in the bushes, ready to pounce, and have no redeeming qualities, particularly as a Wikipedian, Keyboard Dank. The last time I played D&D was about 25 years ago. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I requested the definition, as others dislike the notion that elitism is defined by its result, not its justification. I still await the answer. I claim that elitists hide their elitism, and hide from it. Glad to be back. As for bigots, at least they are open about their prejudice. William R. Buckley (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous categories

FYI, there is a discussion about eponymous categories here. --Kbdank71 16:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New speedy rename criterion

If a parent article is moved with clear consensus, it should only be understood that the categories be renamed to match. For instance, John Whatever's article goes through requested moves and is moved with a clear consensus to John Q. Whatever, then "Category:John Whatever albums/songs" would need to be moved as well. The category rename is clearly non-controversial, so why drag it through CFD if it's clearly not going to be contested? Therefore, I propose a new criterion for speedy renaming that is phrased something like this:

"Categories that need to be renamed to match a recently-renamed parent article, only in cases where the parent article has been moved through a consensus formed at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. This does not apply for any other cases of parent articles being renamed."

Of course, there might be a couple bugs to work out in this criterion, but that's basically what I'm going for — only speedy rename to match parent article if the parent article was moved after an RM consensus. This might help trim the huge CFD backlog, at least a tiny bit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cough, choke. Maybe when WP:RM decides to follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and creates unambiguous titles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this would provide enough benefit for the potential pain it would inflict. How many of these are there really that are processed daily at CfD? Not many. But let me count the ways this could be "abused" or misunderstood. Good Ol’factory 10:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have consensus here as well (because consensus at RM doesn't always mean the same consensus will appear here). Sometimes the category is different than the article for good reason. Plus, wouldn't the parent article of Category:John Whatever albums be John Whatever albums? Not John Whatever. Unless you want the new speedy criterion to include all categories that deal in any way with John Whatever. In which case I'd have to say absolutely not. --Kbdank71 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If more consensus is needed, is CFD re-list automatic or requested?

I proposed some pretty sweeping changes within Category:Musical instruments, but did so at the end of the GMT day and got no input at all. For something that big that got no agree/disagree, will the admins automatically re-list it on a new day, or should I delete it from the 5 May CFD and move it to a new day, or do I request a re-list, or what? Here are the proposals in question:

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_5#Folk_musical_instruments
• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_5#Category:Wind_instruments_proper

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to wait for someone to close it. The admins look at these and try and determine the best course of action from the comments. Relisting is one of those options. If there is a consensus, they should take action based on that. If there is no consensus, it should be closed as no consensus or relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note, that the discussions for May 5 should remain open for another 42 hours or so. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a potential category discussed before I actually make it?

I've thought of a category that seems worthy of being created, but there are very good reasons against having it, not the least of which is previous deletion of similar categories. Should I make the category and list it here? That seems a little...strange. But waiting for someone else to find it and (probably) list it here seems almost dishonest.

The category I've thought of is Athletes with diabetes. This doesn't seem to have existed before, but Category:People with diabetes and Category:Diabetics were both deleted previously. I think in the case of athletes, the disease becomes a defining characteristic (Adam Morrison, Brandon Morrow, and Jay Cutler (American football), just off the top of my head, are very well-known as diabetics and there have been stories in print and TV media about their stringent diabetes management regiments), but I can absolutely see why others wouldn't think so. Nosleep 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look here, you can see that Category:People with diabetes was unanimously voted for deletion. The main argument was that "diabetes is not a defining aspect of what makes a person notable". The same will be true in the category you propose to create. I'm afraid it won't be longlived and I advice against it. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion needed

I noticed that quite often living persons has categories as such "Christian communists " "Communist Party of the Soviet Union members" etc, while in fact such people there were in the past associated with communists, like article Algirdas Brazauskas. Perhaps those categories at least should have word former ? Any suggestions? M.K. (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, Misplaced Pages categories do not necessarily describe people's current status: many under the Category:Sportspeople are no longer sportspeople (i.e. they are retired). In my opinion, the "former" modifier makes sense only if the transition itself is notable (see e.g. Category:People by former religion). GregorB (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Help!

WikiProject Orphans and foundlings has been renamed Misplaced Pages: WikiProject: Orphaned, abandoned and removed children. I started an orphans and foundlings category page here and need some help to change this to Category: Orphaned, abandoned and removed children. Thanks.Fainites scribs 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

non-articles and WP:CSD#C1

There are a number of cats currently at Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion that start with the word "non-article". We're having a discussion about whether these qualify for speedy deletion here. If they otherwise qualify, then how do I check to see if they were empty 4 days ago? - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories starting with "non-article", IMO, are just as speedy deletable as any others under C1. Someone requested they be excluded from the DBR report because (I assume?) they felt these types of categories met the "Categories that are occasionally empty by their nature" exception, although I wouldn't agree. I personally don't like deleting these types of categories, mainly because of the higher odds of complaints on my talk page, but I definitely think these "non-article" categories aren't the types of categories that should be exempt due to the "empty by their nature" exception and I would support any admin who deleted them as C1. I've mentioned to MZMcBride before that a list of all the filtered out categories on a seperate page would be nice for this report, you may want to officially request it at WT:DBR so that it is easier to verify that such categories have been empty for 4+ days. VegaDark (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD categories renamed

Did I miss a discussion or have most of the CfD categories been renamed out of process? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just popping in to make the same plaint.

• With careless spelling mistakes the first time:
  • "Categoried for deltion from "
  • "Categories for deletion from "
• Doesn't Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) (and his SmackBot (talk · contribs)) understand these are categories for discussion?
• The date was changed from yyyy-mm to Month ####.
• How useless! Can they be changed back quickly? And his bot suspended for misuse (not an approved task)?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably because the parent is Category:Categories for deletion and has been around since 2004. I'm all for consistency, but shouldn't the parent have been renamed, not the children, esp considering what CFD stands for? --Kbdank71 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The parent was renamed. The relevant tree is:

• Category:Misplaced Pages categorization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), since 2004-10-03T10:34:05
  • Category:Categories for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), see 2007 January 4
    • Category:Categories for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Category:Categories for merging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Category:Categories for renaming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • and others less well-known, mostly empty.

As they are deleted, I cannot see where the old categories were placed. Somebody should restore them!

• Category:CfD 2009-04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  "2009-05-20T01:42:50 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:CfD 2009-04" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, deleting page per result of AfD discussion. using TW)"

  • What AfD? There's no link to any AfD (or otherwise) discussion!

• Category:CfD 2009-05 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  2009-05-20T02:46:59 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:CfD 2009-05" ‎ (C1: Empty category)

  • Sure it was, after he improperly changed the templates without discussion!

The replacement dated categories were added to the wrong part of the tree by Debresser (talk · contribs) yesterday:

• Category:Categories for deletion from April 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Categories for deletion from May 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And he heavily altered the /doc for the templates today:

• Template:Cfc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfd/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfr/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cfr-speedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why? And who the heck is Debresser (talk · contribs)? I don't see a lot of contributions here!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the discussion was here. I have expressed my displeasure there with the violation of process and said I will not comment there since that is not the correct forum for a change like this. I'll add a pointer there to this discussion. I'm also strongly tempted to revert all of the template changes and at a minimum rename using our bots, the May category! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, that's not just CfD categories, that was a wholesale violation of category renaming in general! At Village pump (miscellaneous)?!?! Farmbrough should have known better, after all these years.... Please rename back. I can help later today, am tied up at the moment.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see now. I agree with changing these back. The Category:CFD YYYY-MM format worked fine. It's not like anyone who worked cleaning those out were confused and needed to have them changed. --Kbdank71 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The templates and categories were fixed. We just need a bot to move things back. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, categories need to be undeleted, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss some? I thought I undeleted them already? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reported this reverting in the middle of an ongoing discussion on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed and urge all those involved to stop at once. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And so that everyone knows. We now have the original ones that were restored, the replacement ones that were added without a proper discussion and a new set of by month categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the correct procedures here. I proposed this at the Village Pump (link above) and all agreed, including some experienced editors. So there was discussion, and consensus, before anybody started doing anything.

Apart from that, as you see, this is just working on the "housestyle" of Misplaced Pages, while absolutely no changes are made to the workings of these categories and templates. And for sure no heavily altering, as all can see. So I really can't see what the heat is about. Anyway, let's see what Rich will have to say. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May I ask one small question, please. Is there something that is not working? I mean, apart from people having to spend a minute looking for a renamed category? I think all is working just fine. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good thing because it does away with the cryptically named categories. And while those that work regularly on them may know that a category called CfD which is a sub category of "Categories for deletion" is a actually about categories for discussion, it is by no means obvious, and without Debresser's initiative, which I applaud, this breakage in the category tree would have carried on. It is simplicity itself to move these dated cats to be sub-cast of Cats for discussion, and to rename them appropriately. Obfuscated names are fine for cliques, but they don't help the project as a whole. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18 20 May 2009 (UTC).

And who the heck is Debresser He's an editor who has been doing various things to improve Misplaced Pages.

Why don't we all agree that (a) there should have been some discussion on this page, and was not, and Debresser now knows that, and will post accordingly in the future; (b) reverting all the changes for not following process is to give process an importance far greater than it deserves; per WP:IAR, the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and per WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy; and (c) what was done did improve things; the question now is what further changes are needed to improve matters. That may mean setting some things back to the way they were, but that needs to be justified by something other than "that's what we were used to". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But the people that actually use these were never asked or notified or consulted before these wholesale changes were made out of process. If it was not broken it did not need to be changed. It especially should not have been driven by a regular editor with bogus reasons on the edits creating the changes. To suggest that this was not controversial is completely without any support. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you weren't asked. I hope you understand nobody did that on purpose. It seemed very trivial. An obvious, uncontroversial, standarisation. And , frankly, don't you agree it is a great idea? Have a look at this list. {{CfD 2009-04}} stood out there like a pimple on Miss America's nose among 42 categories of one and the same standarised dateformat. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a great idea. Another of Farmbrough's lame "standardization" attempts — as if his AWB "fixes" weren't bad enough already. WTF was {{WMCSBM3}}?!?! I wonder what the other working groups are saying?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual you fail WP:CIVIL. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 21 May 2009 (UTC).

No, it's not a great idea. If you would actually explain why the changes were not good, you might get some agreement and support from those of us who think the changes had at least some merit. Continuing to simply say "bad idea" without explaining isn't helpful, at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually nobody else complained at all. Since it is really all very simple edits, working on a uniform and logical housestyle, which is a way of making Misplaced Pages more easily understandable and accessable. Would you perhaps care to join me? There are a few more tedious but important housekeeping jobs that are crying out for an extra hand. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving to "Categories for discussion from... " in place of the current name(s). This will be easy enough and should provide both clarity and consistency. Rich Farmbrough, 17:47 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Works for me. Was "current name(s)" an attempt at humor? :) Debresser (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Only an attempt? Oh.. very well then. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01 21 May 2009 (UTC).