Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:58, 25 April 2014

• WT:CFD

	Categories
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories

	Deletion (defunct)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion

On May 2006, it was proposed that this page be moved from Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion. The result of the discussion was page moved to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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)

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-church-stub}}
• {{HongKong-struct-stub}}
• {{HongKong-hospital-stub}}
• {{HongKong-museum-stub}}
• {{HongKong-sports-venue-stub}}

"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)

The bot request has been withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose new subpage for Discussions awaiting closure

I propose to create a new subpage for the "Discussions awaiting closure" section of WP:CFD/W, in order to allow that section to be unprotected.

I propose calling the page Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, with shortcuts from WP:CFD/AC and WP:CFDAC.

WP:CFD/W has been fully protected since 2007, apart from a brief lifting of protection from Dec08 to March09. See the original 2007 discussion and the 2009 discussion. (Disclosure: in each case, I instigated the protection).

In general, I think that protection has worked well. It is no impediment to the admins who close discussions, and has prevented any further abuse of the bots, as happened in 2007.

However, the "Discussions awaiting closure" section does not instruct any bots, so it does not need to be protected. Unprotecting it will allow non-admins to update it, for example at the start of a new day. It will also mean that any non-admins who close discussions with a "keep" result can update the list. Non-admins shouldn't really be closing discussions with outcomes other than a clear "keep", so this is sufficient to facilitate them.

Any comments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

PS. I mentioned this idea in a discussion last year, but didn't follow up on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Note that at present WP:CFDW is transcluded into WP:CFD and WP:CFDALL, but this section is the only part which appears there, as the rest of it is surrounded by "noinclude" tags. We will be able to simplify that structure by instead transcluding the new page into those three existing pages. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Fayenatic london: That is what I had intended. Thanks for pointing it out. --22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Done - very good idea : )

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Discussions awaiting closure.

I also checked for other transclusions but only found a subpage of BHG besides the two already mentioned. All dabbed and ready to go : ) - jc37 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: Why Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Discussions awaiting closure rather than just Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure?

The word "discussions" seems tautological.

It also seems a bit odd that when two editors had agreed on a particular title, you jumped in and implemented a different one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the categories aren't awaiting closure. The discussions of the categories are awaiting closure.

That aside, you two were discussing splitting information, I didn't realise you were tied to a specific word phrase...

Anyway, you're welcome for helping <shrugs> - jc37 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No prob with proposing a different name, but usually better to put it on the table first.

The categories can't be closed; only the discussions can be closed. So I'll move it to the shorter title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, categories cannot be closed. The page name is Categories for discussion, not Category discussions. And as the discussions, not the categories are closed (as you note), hence the name.

But ok, per WP:BRD I have no problem reverting the split that I performed, in order to facilitate hearing from others. I know, let's get a full RfC on this. We can debate the grammar that we both apparently agree on, which you seem to simultaneously discount in favour of some other name.

Oh and Discussions awaiting closure is also the stable version of the name of that thread for years.

But hey, let's dive in and debate this. Sounds like a great usage of our time... - jc37 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah for goodness sake, Jc37. You agree that it's a "very good idea", but then revert the whole thing because you dislike the name being changed to what was originally proposed? It seems petulant to just demolish it, when we could have continued to discuss the name.

The title of the thread has not been changed. It's just the sub-page which has a more concise name. A link to the page reads Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure; it doesn't need to spell out the full context twice, any more than Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working needs to be called Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working page for categories whose fate has been agreed in a discussion or Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual needs to be called Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working/Working page for categories requiring manual work after a discussion .

In terms of great uses of time, demolition of a "very good idea" doesn't rank high. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to read the various adjectives (like "petulant"). I helpfully implemented the split, then you undid part of it because you didn't like that I used the name that has been the name of that thread for years, and you call me petulant? I'm not sure, but I believe that that is called projection.

But no worries, the community can have their say and we'll all move beyond this.

Oh, incidentally, I now oppose the split. Something I noticed after I did the split earlier - it wasn't being updated, except by me (and then you) who knew about it. I think if it's split it will be even less likely to be updated by closers as we are making it more difficult (several clicks away). Not everyone uses a computer keyboard and mouse to edit, after all. - jc37 21:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought I saw an edit summary where you fixed a heading so that we could click to edit the page from within WP:CFDW? – Fayenatic London 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That was me that made that change, before Jc37 reverted the whole thing.

If Jc37 had stopped acting unilaterally and discussed things, he might have spotted that.

As to Jc37's claim that I reverted something, that's not true: I moved the page to the title originally proposed, which is supported by all participants in this discussion, other than Jc37. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support original proposal. This name is fine as proposed and doesn't need changes to the wording. If you went to a garage and saw a sign saying "Awaiting repair" you wouldn't think "I wonder if that means cars?"  Philg88  04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Any thoughts on the naming issue? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The short name was fine by me. I see now that Jc37 used the slightly longer name in good faith to match the heading. Certainly confused me when the split was reverted! I don't mind. Given the choice I'd go with the shorter. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, FL. Let's see if Jc37 has anything more to add, but so far it looks like a consensus to go ahead, and use the shorter name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

An RfC has (at least) 30 days. I'm happy to wait to see what the community-at-large thinks. - jc37 21:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I had read the RfC suggestion as a joke. IMHO, about 10 days here would be enough. Well, no hurry. There are not so many non-admin closures that it gets hard for admins to update the tallies sufficiently promptly. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: I don't know what you are up to, but I am going to call your bluff on this.

I will reinstate the subpage under the name agreed by 3 out of the 4 editors who discussed it here. If you revert it, I will seek admin intervention, because reverting what you yourself called a "very good idea" looks like bad faith.

If you want to open an RM or RFC, feel free to do so. But I don't see that you have any right to veto a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by an independant, uninvolved closer. You are neither. And this isn't merely my opinion, nor is it merely the WP:CON policy, but arbcom has reaffirmed this in several RfArs recently (this case, and this case for example).

And this was a "request for comment" per Misplaced Pages policy, before I ever commented here. You asked something of the community, and even stated the words "propose", and specifically asked for comment. I realise you're used to CFD where a discussion is typically closable after 5-7 days. But once an rfc is opposed or is in any way contentious or controversial, we wait out the 30 days to give the community an opportunity to discuss.

In all of this, I have followed Misplaced Pages policy. I saw a discussion, which, at the time appeared unanimous and uncontroversial. So to be helpful, I was WP:BOLD and implemented the proposal.

But once it was clear (from your comments at least) that it was not uncontroversial, I reverted myself per WP:BRD. I am following the dispute resolution process.

Since then, you have reverted again, which is at the least considered disruptive to do during an ongoing RFC.

Now I wrote up a full thing for AN/I, but in the process of finding links, I discovered/realised a wrinkle in all of this. And I decided that even though you are violating our policy on consensus, among several others, I simply don't want to see the results of what I found cause you to be sanctioned in the way it has happened to several others over the last few years. I don't wish that upon anyone.

So if you want to chalk this up to a "win" or some nonsense, feel free. (I only mention this due to your choice of game-like phrasing, such as "call your bluff".)

As this rfc is still open, you may want to advertise it using the accepted ways, like using an rfc template, or posting a neutral note at a WP:VP or, since WP:CFD/W is a protected page, at WP:AN. It may help the appearance of transparency in the process.

As far as I am concerned, I've commented. your link doesn't resolve my concern about closers needing more clicks to update the info (because they still do). But to be clear I won't be reverting, and won't be editing the created page whatsoever in the meantime. I think someone should revert it to the previous stable version as this is a currently high traffic process page, but even so, I would encourage others to not do so unless they discuss it at AN/I first.

In the meantime, I will probably ask one or more who I respect their insight into this situation. It would be nice to know the proper procedure should something like this happen in the future.

Oh and consider this my last words on this. Per WP:DR, I am disengaging from you. Do not bother to respond, I will not see it and will ignore any "pings". - jc37 08:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Subpage implemented at WP:CFD/AC

I have reinstated the subpage at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, with shortcuts from WP:CFD/AC and WP:CFDAC. (plus WP:CFD/DAC).

This is the name which has been supported by 3 out of the 4 editors who took part in the discussion. If Jc37 still prefers his alternative, please feel free to open a WP:RM discussion.

Jc37 pointed above a flaw with his initial implementation, which was that the subpage could not be edited by a link from WP:CFD/W. I had already fixed this before he reverted the whole thing, and the reinstated version retains this functionality. See the current version.

Any concerns about the name of the page can be addressed by an RM, and Jc37's only concern about functionality has been addressed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added links to the new page from WP:CFDALL (where it is transcluded at the end of the page) and WP:CFDAI. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Sorry I had missed them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 April 19

Were there really no nominations started on this day? Or has something gone wrong with the page? If there were none, that has to be a first in a very long time. Good Ol’factory 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The page history shows nothing.

I don't recall any previous day with no discussions, since I first participated in CFD back in 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Categories pages