Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:22, 16 April 2014 editClemRutter (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers42,734 edits →Contested deletion of Category:Comprehensive schools in London: Explaining the dilemma and suggesting a 4 cat solution← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:27, 20 April 2014 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Request for a BOT to implement non-admin closures: new sectionNext edit →
Line 126:		Line 126:
	::::It never existed until you created it. It's not unusual for users to remove redlinked categories from articles because such categories don't exist. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)		::::It never existed until you created it. It's not unusual for users to remove redlinked categories from articles because such categories don't exist. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Understood.....I must have not created it though had put it on a couple of titles other than ] - during my "population activities" today I found it was already on ] and something else already; so I had created the redlinks in the course of creating the series of related articles, then forgot to create it; which is done now.] (]) 07:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)		:::::Understood.....I must have not created it though had put it on a couple of titles other than ] - during my "population activities" today I found it was already on ] and something else already; so I had created the redlinks in the course of creating the series of related articles, then forgot to create it; which is done now.] (]) 07:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

			== Request for a BOT to implement non-admin closures ==

			{{user links\|DavidLeighEllis}} has opened a request for authorisation of a bot to implement CFD closures: ].

			Editors may wish to comment on that proposal, by a non-admin. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:27, 20 April 2014

Shortcut

WT:CFD

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 2010 2011 2012 2013

Wikidata links

Inter-wiki links to foreign-language Misplaced Pages are no longer on category pages, but stored at Wikidata. (See recent Q&A at WT:Wikidata.) Therefore they need to be updated separately after category renames and, in some, cases, merges. I have added a paragraph at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. May I request those who regularly close CfDs, or clear up the working page, to confirm that they have seen this, either by responding below or by "thanking"/otherwise pinging me? ("Thanks for nothing" will be accepted in good faith! ) – Fayenatic London 19:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason that a bot can not do this? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As the Q&A says, it's probably possible, but it's not being done at the moment. I don't know what data the bot would use for renames; I suspect it might be incomplete in practice. In any case, mergers ought to be examined manually. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So, picking one that has consensus and should close today and has an entry on Wikidata. When we merge Category:Female government ministers to Category:Women government ministers, we remove the English Misplaced Pages entry for Category:Female government ministers. Do we create one for Category:Women government ministers since nothing exists there or do we do nothing? The nothing option is also on the table since I'm not sure in French if there is a difference between Female and Women. Then we have the other two language ones that I can't read at all. So are most admins here qualified to make any changes other then a simple remove and add? And that action could be wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. Clicking the "Edit links" button under "Languages" on that category page takes you to https://www.wikidata.org/Q8446083 . There, you currently see under "Misplaced Pages pages linked to this item" that the English Misplaced Pages entry is Category:Female government ministers. At the right time, any of us can click the "edit" button at the right of that entry and change it to Category:Women government ministers.

If you look at the latter, it currently has nothing under "Languages", so there is one and only one page for this topic at Wikidata, as it should be. Nevertheless there are some duplicates at Wikidata; if you come across any, https://www.wikidata.org/Help:Merge explains how to merge them. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re changing the link to Category:Women government ministers on wikidata. How do we know that this is correct? We are making assumptions about the other contents are we not? How do we know that our old name and the remaining wikidata contents were in sync and the new name is or is not not? I would think we remove the current entry and maybe add a new entry on its own. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we should WP:AGF that the Wikidata links which we can't read are mostly right, although much can be checked using Google translate. I am currently using the Chrome browser, which I find makes an easy job of instant translation. I respectfully disagree about any need to split the page at Wikidata for category:Women government ministers; the change of meaning in English is subtle, and therefore apt to be lost in translation; either of these English names is a close match to the linked French one, fr:Catégorie:Femme ministre; these are government ministers who were women, not ministers with a portfolio for women's affairs.

Still, perhaps we can put a hold on this discussion pending a further answer at WT:Wikidata, because I spotted a bot doing some changes after category moves. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look up the Quebec Women's Affairs ministry to see what they use; likewise the Canadian federal government's French usage. My guess at this point would be Minstre des affaires feminins or Ministre des affaires des femmes....but affaires is also "business" so....I'll check.Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Quebec turns out to not have such a ministry- provided t hat

Skookum1, read it again; you missed the point. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Emaus has explained at WT:Wikidata that his bot catches some but not all changes. It did not pick up the Women government ministers, for example; I just fixed that manually, using the Wikidata URL saved above. So, for the time being we had better do these manually. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion of Category:Comprehensive schools in London

@Bleaney:, why have you depopulated Category:Comprehensive schools in London, and its borough sub-categories, without discussion at CfD? It is part of Category:Comprehensive schools in England. A process is required to establish a consensus to delete or merge categories, after which the work on member articles can usually be automated. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have depopulated these categories as they meaningless - Since the academies and free schools programmes many schools are free to opt out of the national curriculum and therefore do not offer a truly 'comprehensive' education. Even the remaining community schools, VA and VC schools now often have 'specialisms'. All of this is covered in the Comprehensive schools article. What I have done instead is categorise the articles by school type, which has much more meaning in terms of knowing the type of curriculum on offer. Bleaney (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh? you just wrote here that specialisms have ended, although that was news to me. Anyway, specialisms and curriculum have not got much to do with admissions, which I thought was the main point of comprehensives - i.e. all abilities together, as opposed to selective schools. Beyond that, even if you had done most of the work on the London categories, they have been there for years, and are (were) part of a national categorisation scheme which you have now started to dismantle, apparently without seeking consensus first. Please take the England categories to CfD for approval of your changes; otherwise, I think the London categories should be reinstated. – Fayenatic London 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The old DfES Specialist schools programme has ended (see Specialist schools programme) meaning schools no longer get dedicated funding for their specialisms. Yet many still offer a specialised curriculum so therefore not comprehensive. I really didn't think this would be controversial, I thought the cleanup was long overdue, besides any school that still proudly shouts about its comprehensive credentials can be referenced in the main body of the article. Considering that Academies now make up more than 50% of all secondary schools in England now, I think the Comprehensive schools categories are obsolete. Bleaney (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Comprehensive school is very clear in its intro: "comprehensive" is not about curriculum, but about intake. Therefore your arguments have no relevance. Please revert your edits, or submit them to discussion at a formal CfD nomination. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for Category:Specialist schools in London, as it was part of Category:Specialist schools in England. Your argument is more relevant for dismantling that, but it still requires discussion. Deleting just the London part from an England category hierarchy, as you have done, strikes me as unhelpful to the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 16:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Who cares what you think Fayenetic, I was bold and did what I thought was right... I still do. My advice is read the comprehensive schools article in full, and who said deletion of catefories required discussion? If you dont like it, YOU take it further, im fine. Bleaney (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And actually why do I have to discuss the deletion of a category? Why are editors given the option to request a speedy deletion if they are not supposed to? So am I to assume that every single category on Misplaced Pages is sacrosanct and must go to committee before being deleted? Bleaney (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the policy for deletion, yes. According to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Ready for deletion, I hereby notify and request that you should follow the procedure in future. – Fayenatic London 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an overall comment. There have been a long list of these that were processed as empty. I think I saw the first batch about a month ago. Maybe someone on the other side of the pond needs to check the list of emptied categories more often. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

On the schools: I accept the argument for deletion of specialist schools, as most if not all English secondary schools seem to have a specialism now, and I'm not convinced that specialisms are WP:DEFINING, so please continue your good work and nominate Category:Specialist schools in England and the rest of its sub-cats for deletion. However, comprehensive schools is a counterpart to Category:Grammar schools in London, and I think it should be repopulated. Which part of the page Comprehensive school would point to deletion of the category? – Fayenatic London 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think my point is Fayenetic is that as most English secondary schools seem to be comprehensive, i'd use the same WP:DEFINING argument. Grammars dont need comps to counterbalance them, they are defninitive in their own right, and most areas of England dont have grammar schools any way. Bleaney (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london:, please see Comprehensive school (England and Wales)#Current status.

Thanks, I see that argument Bleaney. Nevertheless, a discussion is required, and the London categories should only be deleted if the whole England category tree goes. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Note. Category:Specialist schools in London, Category:Music Colleges in London, Category:Technology Colleges in London, Category:Arts Colleges in London and Category:Mathematics and Computing Colleges in London are all empty and listed for deletion after 72 hours. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I was working at getting rid of the whole category tree for England actually before your intervention and am qyuite happy to continue if people are happy for me to do it. Bleaney (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My intervention? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think these categories should be deleted... The specialist schools programme has ended, and the schools that still claim to have a specialism do this on their own appointment. Also many of these claimed 'specialisms' dont fit neatly into these categories any more. The specialist schools programme barely lasted a decade, and I think its impact in the general history and development of Education in England is not notable enough to justify keeping these categories for posterity. Besides, ive always thought these categories are too ambiguous in their naming considering their scope - Language College could mean many different things to a reader, and referring only to a bunch of schools who previously had a specialism in languages for a while may be misleading. I think the whole category tree should be deleted, and im quite happy to work through and do it. Bleaney (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bleaney:, I think there will be no objection to deletion of Category:Specialist schools in England and its sub-categories, but please use the WP:CFD process. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now tagged all the remaining Specialist schools categories for deletion, and listed them at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#Category:Specialist schools in England. @Bleaney: was it you who emptied the Greater Manchester categories out of process? Please desist, and in particular do not empty the comprehensive school categories in that way, or somebody may WP:TROUT you. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it has occurred to several editors that removing the cats Comprehensive schools in XXXX is a political act and a breach of WP:NPOV. With my non-wp hat on I have been on the front line fighting to make Kent county council to obey Circular 11/66 and 10/68 and remove selection from its schools. My children went to one of the two comprehensive schools of the 104 secondary schools in Kent. That was very much a political and ethical decision. Though it remains a comprehensive school in its intake we lost the battle to keep it from becoming an academy. ( I missed the short discussion on Specialist school cats- but leave them be, for certain specialist users they are important, and have a residual permanent affect).

The eradication of the term Comprehensive School and replacing it with the derisory term bog standard comprehensive school is very much on the flailing British Conservative Parties agenda- with my wp hat on on I am above such Neo-liberal propaganda and seek to keep wp free of such spin. I can imagine the Govian speech where he announces that even Misplaced Pages has deleted Comprehensive schools from their vocabulary- we are all free schools now. Must I continue. References to the bog standard discussionb.

The practicalities of moving the content of Comprehensive schools in XXXX to Secondary schools in XXXX means that we have errors. The former Direct Grant Schools which are now private- indeed all 11-16 private schools belong in that cat- which unfortunately is not very useful. See Stockport and Stockport Grammar School which has been a secondary school since 1487- and in Canterbury we have an example from AD597.

If it is any comfort the incoming Labour government in 1944 had a similar problem in classifying school- and couldn't do it, which is why in the 1944 Education Act there was a category- Schools by Special Agreement for the ones that just didn't fit in.

Secondary Schools- refer to Schools categorised by age. See Nursery/Infant/Junior/Mixed Juniors
Comprehensive Schools- refer to Schools categorised by entry requirement Secondary modern/Comprehensive/Grammar/Special
Local authority schools- refer to Schools categorised by funding regime Independant/Free/Academy/Local authority schools/Former Direct Grant/Special Agreement/Voluntary Controlled (Church School Anglican)/Voluntary Aided (Church School RC)
Specialist Sports Academy- refer to school categorised by curricula initiative-

The proposals above blur the four separate trees and cause greater confusion: each school will automatically belong to four categories- one on each row. I suggest you study this and populate and restore the deleted categories, and check that each school occurs in each tree. A brief description of the term should be included as a lead in each cat page.

As a final thought- ask any man in the street (or Guardian journalist) to describe the system of education in England and he will describe the one pertenant in his own authority and will be blissfull unaware of the system 10 miles away- where each of the words can mean a different thing.

(Scarred in Bromley, Bexley, Greenwich, Kent, Medway, Stockport, Cheshire, Manchester, Trafford, Hereford and Worcester, Tyne and Wear) -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Environmental skepticism

This discussion (archived on March 12) hasn't had any edits at all for 10 days. Can someone please intervene in the discussion, preferably by closing it to rename/split (I don't really care which)? Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

the (very few) admins who close these out are aware of the backlog, which extends Into february. I suggest patience...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait, but I doubt the backlog is so bad that it will not be cleared until February 2015 (which is apparently what you mean). Was that a typo? Jinkinson talk to me 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant I think there are open CFD discussions from feb 2014.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving stubs and associated categories

I've searched the archive and can't find any details on how to move a stub that does nothing other than populate a category. There doesn't appear to be a {{Tfr-speedy}} equivalent to {{Cfr-speedy}} or will moving the category automatically trigger a move of the associated stub? Any help would be much appreciated. ► Philg88 ◄ 09:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Which stub? What do you want to move it to? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a separate place for stub naming, but it is now handled at CfD. The connection is not automatic, i.e. the stub template has to be moved separately from the category, but one discussion handles both. Do you want to rename a stub where the category name is already satisfactory? – Fayenatic London 13:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To editors Redrose64 and Fayenatic london: Thanks for the quick replies - the move of both the stub and category is a non-contentious one to fall in line with Chinese naming convention policy and existing stubs/templates:

"HongKong" should be replaced with "Hong Kong" and all dashes should be removed per other categories in Category:Hong Kong building and structure stubs. ► Philg88 ◄ 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast. I think these are in line with the stub template naming convention. See {{HongKong-stub}} for another example. I believe that all stub templates do not use spaces and separate words with a '-'. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Now having said that, it is still possible to rename the categories the stubs are placed in by a nomination here. Not sure if the category renames would be eligible at speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT there is no action required here. As Vegaswikian said, the five stub templates are already named in line with stub template naming conventions (just look through Category:Stub message boxes to see); and they all populate Category:Hong Kong building and structure stubs, which is also named in line with stub category naming conventions (see Category:Stub categories). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my error due to ignorance of stub naming conventions. The associated category names are fine as they are so no action needed. Many thanks. ► Philg88 ◄ 05:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did Category:Interior Plateau get deleted?

Saw BDD's HotCat removal of it on Mount Lolo. That's a major landform in British Columbia, and is a proper noun; it is one of the major landforms in British Columbia, and is in the same hierarchies as such things as Canadian Shield and Coast Mountains and Rocky Mountain Trench and more; it's also a parent category for items located within it, like Clear Range, Chilcotin Plateau and lots more. Whose bright idea was this? I went to the redlink, it said nothing about a CfD discussion anywhere. Who deleted it and why? Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of it being deleted? I don't see that it ever existed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong; I thought I had created it as a parent for various other items; ~~Category:Quesnel Highland, Category:Thompson Plateau, Category:Cariboo Plateau~~ and more are all subdivisions of it; not creating it, then, was an oversight on my part......it's a primary-tier landform.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This begs a question, though, indicating it had existed....maybe it was a redlink on that article...but as noted I'm surprised I didn't create it, in teh course of creating/organizing the BC Landforms categories. I've queried BDD but have not yet received a reply.Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I (re-)created it and populated it, though there are still lots of mtns and lakes and such that should be in it; subcats for "Mountains of the Interior Plateau" (for ones not part of the Clear Range or Marble Range etc) and similar will be created, along with cats for the subplateau/highlands redlinked above; populating them is time consuming as most Mountains and ranges in the main cats there are unsorted.Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It never existed until you created it. It's not unusual for users to remove redlinked categories from articles because such categories don't exist. Good Ol’factory 07:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood.....I must have not created it though had put it on a couple of titles other than Mount Lolo - during my "population activities" today I found it was already on Bonaparte Plateau and something else already; so I had created the redlinks in the course of creating the series of related articles, then forgot to create it; which is done now.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for a BOT to implement non-admin closures

DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has opened a request for authorisation of a bot to implement CFD closures: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DavidLeighEllisBot_2#DavidLeighEllisBot_2.

Editors may wish to comment on that proposal, by a non-admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:

WikiProject Categories pages