User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 37
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Good Olfactory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 |
You closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:Articles containing Old English (ca. 450-1100)-language text as rename but there are big problems which weren't discovered in the CfD. "Old English (ca. 450-1100)" is a standardized ISO 639-3 name we download from https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/iso639-3/files/downloads/iso-639-3_Name_Index_Latin1.tab. We have seven other such "ca." categories [1] but no other "c." categories [2]. The "ca." name is coded in modules and templates [3] which populate Category:Articles containing Old English (ca. 450-1100)-language text. The new name Category:Articles containing Old English (c. 450-1100)-language text displays: "Error: Old English (c. 450-1100) is not a valid ISO 639 or IETF language name". I suggest reverting the rename for now and either relist or close without renaming. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I guess from your usual editing times that you will not reply for a while. I have recreated the category page for now to avoid around 750 red category links on articles. I hope you don't mind. You can decide what to do when you edit again. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging SchreiberBike and YorkshireLad from the CfD. It's a hidden category so I don't think MOS:CIRCA compliance is worth the problems a rename causes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, PrimeHunter. I wasn't aware of the ISO 639-3 issue, but had I known I probably would have said to leave the "ca." per the reasons you've outlined, and I'd therefore support reversing the CfD. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- (But perhaps we could put a note on the "ca." category page that it's located there for technical reasons, and similarly on the other seven?) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Echoing YorkshireLad, I was unaware of the bigger issues here. I've no objection to reverting the change and I think it's a good idea to put an explanation for the unusual abbreviation on the page. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have created {{Category ISO name with ca.}} and added it to the eight categories. It displays the below. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This hidden category deliberately ignores the MOS:CIRCA guideline to use "c." in articles, the MOS:DASH guideline for year ranges, or both. The category should not be moved. - Thanks for this. There seems to be agreement that it should not be changed, so what I'll do is reverse the change and close the CFD as "withdrawn", with a reference to your edits to my talk page above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Echoing YorkshireLad, I was unaware of the bigger issues here. I've no objection to reverting the change and I think it's a good idea to put an explanation for the unusual abbreviation on the page. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- (But perhaps we could put a note on the "ca." category page that it's located there for technical reasons, and similarly on the other seven?) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, PrimeHunter. I wasn't aware of the ISO 639-3 issue, but had I known I probably would have said to leave the "ca." per the reasons you've outlined, and I'd therefore support reversing the CfD. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging SchreiberBike and YorkshireLad from the CfD. It's a hidden category so I don't think MOS:CIRCA compliance is worth the problems a rename causes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:San-Pédro Region (Ivory Coast) logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:San-Pédro Region (Ivory Coast) logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
A tag has been placed on Category:Ecuadorian people of Austrian descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Murders by occupation
When you have a bit of time, it would be helpful to close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Murder victims by occupation. In the interest of closure, I've withdrawn for relisting those few that generated discussion, as was done with the Suicides nomination (that same day).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've been trying to close the relatively straightforward discussions—trying to keep the CFD backlog head above water, as it were. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that makes sense. I've even done a few of the oldest harder ones myself by hand. And why I've been willing to do whatever it takes to simplify the process. In this case, there were 3 that were contentious, while the rest were not. So I've relisted the 3, leaving the easiest as a group for closing.
- Anyway, thanks for your help. There are a lot more per day, less participation in the discussions, and fewer closers than I'd remembered from years in the distant past.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sooo, what about this redirect?
Recently, I've been clicking random page and looking at redirects for that page to see if any should be deleted. I found the page Sooo, which redirects to Salai (needle). There is no mention of sooo on that page. I came to you since you created it in 2013. What do you think? Should this be deleted? Ghinga7 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC) P. S. I love your username.
- I would be fine if it were deleted. The redirect was created when I moved the page to Salai (needle). To my knowledge, it is never called a Sooo, but I could be wrong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, that makes sense. If it's from a page move, then perfectly fine. just thought it odd. I'll add the redirect template for redirects for page moves. Thanks for clearing this up. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Mexican people of Czechoslovak descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Black British sportspeople
Good morning! Would you be willing to reconsider the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_1#Category:Black_British_sportspeople, per WP:NOTVOTE and arguments in favor of deletion are more clearly policy-based? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, but I don't think a "delete" result can be squeezed out of it. I think you can have it reviewed at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Australian people of Yugoslav descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Colombian Bahá'ís
A tag has been placed on Category:Colombian Bahá'ís requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Executed Singaporean people
A tag has been placed on Category:Executed Singaporean people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Singaporean murderers of children
A tag has been placed on Category:Singaporean murderers of children requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Singaporean people convicted of murder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Red links left after CFDW
Hello,
Following your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 4 § American-Indian businesspeople, I notice that a link to the former category name remains on Category:American businesswomen of Indian descent, resulting in a red link. Is there a process or tool by which such hard-coded links can be checked or fixed, or is it entirely relying on the admin implementing the move? Place Clichy (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: Thanks for spotting and reporting this. The only process that I am aware of is for the implementing admin to check backlinks, if s/he implements the CFD manually; or, if WP:CFDW is used, that admin or whichever other admin de-lists the item from CFDW should first check backlinks. (In this case, it was indeed GOF,[4] presumably as an oversight.) – Fayenatic London 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I forgot to check the backlinks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People murdered in the Gambia
A tag has been placed on Category:People murdered in the Gambia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Remaining number-one song categories
Hey there. What about other listed categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Number-one song categories? --George Ho (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, they have all been deleted. Category:UK Independent Singles Chart number-one singles was mentioned by an editor, but it was not formally nominated in that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Inaugural poems
I had just finished making and peopling the inaugural-poets category and was heading back to make one for the poems, but you beat me to it! How weird. I don't usually bump into you except on LDS pages! Thmazing (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Weird – I don't even remember doing that! Oh, I see that I categorized it with parents but did not create it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even so, it happened while I was making the sister category. What wild lives we live. Thmazing (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Brazilian emigrants to Colombia
A tag has been placed on Category:Brazilian emigrants to Colombia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Colombian emigrants to Venezuela
A tag has been placed on Category:Colombian emigrants to Venezuela requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Drug-related deaths in Delaware
A tag has been placed on Category:Drug-related deaths in Delaware requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Category:Treaties of the Pahlavi dynasty
Category:Treaties of the Pahlavi dynasty and siblings have been nominated for renaming to "Pahlavi Iran". Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Pahlavi dynasty. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Question about close of CFD
Hello, I am wondering why Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#Male villains was closed as "no consensus". I think there was a pretty clear consensus to merge both categories and all their subcategories. The keep !votes were not backed up by policy in the slightest, and one was by the creator of the category. There were only 3 other keep votes and all of them were either refuted or never backed up by evidence.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have mis-read it. I'm willing to open up the discussion again and let someone else close it. I have relisted in here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see that it got a couple more new !votes that indicate clear consensus to merge so far. On an unrelated note, I noticed that you did not delete subcategories for the discussion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Category:Superhero video games by decade. The discussion also included the deletion of all the subcategories for the categories as well, as they are similarly problematic. They were just not listed there.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Normally, we don't delete categories as part of a discussion unless they are tagged for nomination and listed with the nomination. In this case I'll go ahead and delete them, because there's really no hope of them surviving a discussion given the previous result. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see that it got a couple more new !votes that indicate clear consensus to merge so far. On an unrelated note, I noticed that you did not delete subcategories for the discussion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Category:Superhero video games by decade. The discussion also included the deletion of all the subcategories for the categories as well, as they are similarly problematic. They were just not listed there.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Category:Former member states of the United Nations has been nominated for discussion
Category:Former member states of the United Nations has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages
Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages.
(It actually happened while I was replying to Place Clichy.)
The !vote was 2 delete, 1 keep, 1 abstain. The abstainer was caught recreating the parent of these categories after prior deletion, with an omicron replacing the 'o' in "from". The abstainer also is responsible for the comment wall of text that made everything difficult. I'd hate to see that tactic being successful.
There are only 2 articles in these 3 categories. That's why Marcocalle and Rathfelder and I have all tried to put these articles into better categories, and been reverted repeatedly (again, by the "abstainer"):
It's a violation of WP:SMALLCAT.
- Sorry for closing while you were commenting – bad timing I guess. I would not be comfortable closing that discussion as "delete". WP:DRV can consider "non-deletions" as well as deletions, so I suggest using that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have closed a lot of discussions lately. Perhaps I am tired and can't see the consensus amongst the long discussion. I appreciate sending new eyes to look at it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain the closing of this CFD? There were some huge misconceptions about the subject matter presented in this category that the votes for delete do not seem to understand.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a clear consensus to delete. There were a range of reasons users were in favour of deletion, which I don't need to re-type here. One user objected to all categorizations by descent, of which this is one. Other users emphasized that this was a non-defining trait of people, and the guidelines state that categorization should be by defining characteristics only. I see you disagreed with the reasons users gave, but you were the only editor, and there's not really such a thing as a consensus of one, especially when there are six !votes that go the other way. If you disagree with the close you can always use WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's clear that these people don't know what they're talking about when they say it's non-defining characteristic when existing literature very clearly spells out what defines this what distinguishes this group of people. Anyways there's definitely a wrecking ball energy going on at CFD at the moment, and considering the same group of people had been going around making mass deletions, the integrity of the discussion is suspect.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you raise the issues at WP:DRV if you want to pursue it further. But—I can't really see how the result could be anything other than how I closed it, even if I agreed with your positions. I do not doubt the integrity of the discussion. I think everyone there probably expressed their opinion in good faith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Mass nomination seems to apply in this particular discussion, considering the number of similar categories present at CFD at that particular time.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would not agree with that. In my experience, the use of the CFD process is no more or less popular lately than it has always been, and no one editor is dominating the pages with many nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there some other means of category creation I could go through rather than DRV, like an AFC for categories? Having participated in this process in the past I would prefer not to go through it if I had to.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. It's pretty open – anyone can create a category. I have seen them proposed at CFD before they are created, but it's certainly the exception. See here for an example of a proposed creation at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that for my purposes it would be courteous to bring up the same discussion that just closed. Anyways the guidelines at WP:CFD does state "CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types." My concern overall is that there is not space for a previously deleted category to "incubate" in order to become acceptable for category space again. Does that imply that once delete, a category can never come back again?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, consensus can change. Sometimes these things take years, but I have seen previously deleted categories be re-created and discussed and kept. I don't think it happens too often though. As far as I know, there's no standard process for this for categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that for my purposes it would be courteous to bring up the same discussion that just closed. Anyways the guidelines at WP:CFD does state "CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types." My concern overall is that there is not space for a previously deleted category to "incubate" in order to become acceptable for category space again. Does that imply that once delete, a category can never come back again?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. It's pretty open – anyone can create a category. I have seen them proposed at CFD before they are created, but it's certainly the exception. See here for an example of a proposed creation at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there some other means of category creation I could go through rather than DRV, like an AFC for categories? Having participated in this process in the past I would prefer not to go through it if I had to.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would not agree with that. In my experience, the use of the CFD process is no more or less popular lately than it has always been, and no one editor is dominating the pages with many nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Mass nomination seems to apply in this particular discussion, considering the number of similar categories present at CFD at that particular time.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you raise the issues at WP:DRV if you want to pursue it further. But—I can't really see how the result could be anything other than how I closed it, even if I agreed with your positions. I do not doubt the integrity of the discussion. I think everyone there probably expressed their opinion in good faith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's clear that these people don't know what they're talking about when they say it's non-defining characteristic when existing literature very clearly spells out what defines this what distinguishes this group of people. Anyways there's definitely a wrecking ball energy going on at CFD at the moment, and considering the same group of people had been going around making mass deletions, the integrity of the discussion is suspect.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Gauging possibility of DRV
- So I went ahead and created another category of similar but not identical scope as this one, and as expected it was put up for CFD within a few days of existence. Given that it wasn't shelled on the spot for G4 I believe I complied with existing guidelines. My main reasons for DRV would be Purpose #3 "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" The information I wish to present is direct proof that the category is WP:DEFINING based on the guideline: ". A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having" One of the articles contained in the category, Tung Chee-hwa, is commonly and consistently defined as "Shanghainese" in reliable sources: random sampling from Google news. I have a few other arguments I wish to bring up but I suppose you don't want to see them here at this time.
- Secondly, I'd like to draw attention to possible procedural errors in the discussion (Purpose #5), namely, the nominating user's history of making less-than-carefully thought out deletion nominations, which have apparently been highlighted several times at WP:ANI. There is also the instance in the current, on-going CFD where users are engaging in WP:ATA such as uncivil language (WP:USELESS, was literally used by two participants. I'm less sure about this other part because I think it may fall under the "to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)." #8 in the "Should not be used" portion.
Thanks again for the advice.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can disregard my first point, as it's mostly just reiterating the arguments made at CFD, however what I wanted to ask of you is whether the second point would be appropriate to be brought up at DRV, or is it considered a personal attack?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your posts. I am unsure. I have no objection to a DRV for the discussion that I closed, so you don't have to worry about me. I think it's a judgment that you would have to make. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- DRV is underway: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 9--Prisencolin (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your posts. I am unsure. I have no objection to a DRV for the discussion that I closed, so you don't have to worry about me. I think it's a judgment that you would have to make. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can disregard my first point, as it's mostly just reiterating the arguments made at CFD, however what I wanted to ask of you is whether the second point would be appropriate to be brought up at DRV, or is it considered a personal attack?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Text restoration
- Hi can I get the text for Category:Shanghainese emigrants to Hong Kong restored? (not the category is itself). I had some information on there that I wanted to migrate to another page. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categorization
For any category-interested people, I have started a discussion here that I would love to have people participate in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Bot deletion of Category:Pages with misplaced templates
I'm not WP:CFD regular, but given your merge closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Pages with misplaced templates I was surprised to see Category:Pages with misplaced templates deleted by the bot. Do you know what happened there? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- That category was merged to Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. See the discussion you linked to. When a merge takes place, the nominated category gets deleted and the contents of the category get moved into the move target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, I didn't realize that Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept was intended to be a bit stingy, I would have thought a catredirect would have made sense given the extant links. It not being my area, I'm not really sure what's considered a reasonable amount of incoming links. I suppose not many are from discussions/etc. but rather users' dashboard pages, so maybe not? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:New Zealand Liberal Party (1992) politicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:Executive branch of the government of the Republic of Artsakh
Your close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Category:Executive branch of the Republic of Artsakh.
Thought you might want to fix your move to Category:Executive branch of the government of Republic of Artsakh (missing "the" before Republic), but it should probably be Category:Executive branch of the Republic of Artsakh government to match most others in Category:Executive branches of government. Sadly, the latter was not nominated, and I didn't catch it.
Would you mind my Speedy nomination?
Thanks for all the recent work on the backlog!
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- That would be great if you fixed it. I'm not sure how I managed to leave out the "the". And compliance with the rest of the tree would be good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:People executed by Italy has been nominated for renaming
Category:People executed by Italy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For closing so many discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
Jackhoff666
Can user:Jackhoff666 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Please explain why you did this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1006267251?diffmode=source Vitreology talk 00:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- The article is in Category:Private islands of Tasmania, which is a subcategory of Category:Private islands of Australia, which is a subcategory of Category:Private islands. So the article is already in Category:private islands by subcategorization. The category Category:private islands is, therefore, redundant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Norwegian people of Mauritian descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Your protection
Hello Good Olfactory I reverted the cascading protection option you placed here - this option should not normally be used for this type of page, as it will force the protection to be inherited downstream where it shouldn't be needed. If I'm missing something, please let me know. — xaosflux Talk 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. You're not missing anything. I thought I was removing a protection – a lesson not to mess around when I don't know what I am doing! Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of List of composers who studied law for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of composers who studied law until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi can I ask why this category was deleted as part of the group CFD: link. I gave one vote towards keeping it and no other !vote mentioned a specific rationale towards deleting this one in particular. (until the very end at least) —-Prisencolin (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- All of the users who commented made some general statements, which I assumed applied to all of the catgories that were nominated. Category:American gangsters of Sicilian descent still exists, which goes to your comment about the Mafia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's fair I guess. But I'm still wondering if the nominations should have been unbundled for a more thorough discussion. Is it possible for one item in a deletion discussion to be individually relisted?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have never seen a relisting like that done, but I suppose it could be somehow. Typically discussions are structured in such a way that it would be unusual for, e.g., one category kept and the others deleted. But it does happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Any way you can manually restore it and just put it up for CFD again?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be consistent with the consensus in the discussion. There was a clear consensus to merge these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Any way you can manually restore it and just put it up for CFD again?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have never seen a relisting like that done, but I suppose it could be somehow. Typically discussions are structured in such a way that it would be unusual for, e.g., one category kept and the others deleted. But it does happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's fair I guess. But I'm still wondering if the nominations should have been unbundled for a more thorough discussion. Is it possible for one item in a deletion discussion to be individually relisted?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
one size fits all
love watching the sheep who clearly know all the details and the context in substantial legal and social history consequences - I am sure the constitutional lawyers who must have made a mint out of the court cases to do with Tasmania must be still alive somewhere on massive pension fortunes... JarrahTree 08:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This above was relating to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_11#Category:Franklin_Dam - I really have no problem if categories are wiped out in the subject area - the thing is the expected followup of fellow editors in the subject area (1982/1983) was nil/zilch/nada. Very interesting time in OZ politics, and Tasmanian for that matter. So if it goes, no problems either way. I would have over 20 potential articles, but due to recent health issues my attention span to dig into the marvellous materials about the era and develop substantial articles to boot, is about zilch. Keep up the good work!!! JarrahTree 03:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Heritage and residence by city or region
You've closed all of these, so I'd like a review of my proposed text at Wikipedia talk:Category names#Heritage and residence by city or region. I've carefully gone through the arguments, and tried to distill them into a few sentences in the same vein as the existing text, without legalese or wikipedianisms.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the following sentences are clear in meaning: "The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable."; "The residence of parents and relatives is never defining and rarely notable." Is "heritage" a specific reference to "People of NATIONALITY descent" categories and "residence" a reference to "People of CITY descent" categories? If so, these references should be clarified. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- As seen on the Wikipedia:Category names Project page:
- Wikipedia:Category names#Heritage = BARian people of FOOian descent. "BARian" is the person's nationality (country of citizenship) and "FOOian" is the person's ethnic ancestry. Confusing definition, as FOOian is used elsewhere as nationality. Would you support swapping BARian and FOOian in that definition to match other sections? Should we use yet another Metasyntactic variable? Baz?
- Wikipedia:Category names#Residence = People from Foo. So the answer no (CITY descent), as there are no Residence descent categories. But I've copied rarely from "place of birth is rarely notable", allowing well-documented exceptions.
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- As seen on the Wikipedia:Category names Project page:
- I'm also not sure that we have reached the stage where the grandparents' heritage is considered "never defining". I haven't really seen that opinion expressed much, and we continue to have many heritage categories, with contents often based on grandparents' (or farther back) heritage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was my distillation of comments such as "A single 15th-century ancestor and last name etymology are not defining in terms of descent." "[...] it doesn't appear to be defining in the descendants of those people." "The ethnicity/nationality/residence of grandparents is rarely notable, and umpteenth generations later is not notable or defining." We do have descent categories for ethnicity of parents. (Carlos thinks we should toss those, too, but there doesn't seem to be enough agreement.) But grandparents and above are 1/4, 1/8, etc. We need a "bright-line rule", because there are too many wikilawyers. Again rarely allowing well-documented exceptions.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was my distillation of comments such as "A single 15th-century ancestor and last name etymology are not defining in terms of descent." "[...] it doesn't appear to be defining in the descendants of those people." "The ethnicity/nationality/residence of grandparents is rarely notable, and umpteenth generations later is not notable or defining." We do have descent categories for ethnicity of parents. (Carlos thinks we should toss those, too, but there doesn't seem to be enough agreement.) But grandparents and above are 1/4, 1/8, etc. We need a "bright-line rule", because there are too many wikilawyers. Again rarely allowing well-documented exceptions.
I've just found the old edit where you added BARian people of FOOian descent.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
We used to have much stricter requirements:
- In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
- Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
Removed by All Hallow's Wraith in 2010, in concert with Debresser, discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive 10#Heritage. Sadly, I was rather busy at the time, implementing RFC 6013 for Linux and a DARPA grant on Project Defiance front end for TOR. Would you support putting that language in Categorization of people instead of Category names? (Both page names have changed over time, perhaps this will meet expectation about what belongs on which page)?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, this is all taking me back. There are probably thousands of these categories. In retrospect and with a little more context, they seem like such a bad idea. So yes, I would support the re-introduction of language like this into categorization of people guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Failed merge?
Category:People from the Athens Urban Area still exists and it is still populated with articles, while all other categories in the same nomination have been properly merged and deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I have added it to the work queue now. I'm not sure how I missed that one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Taiwan has been nominated for renaming
Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Taiwan has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Line Islands
Hello Good Olfactory, If you don't mind, I think my edits need to be restored, as the reason why I emptied out the Line Islands (Kiribati) category was because it duplicates the category Category:Line Islands, which also needed some reorganisation. Tell me what you think, and apologies for not making my intentions clearer in my edit summaries. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Only part of the Line Islands are in Kiribati. I think Category:Line Islands is for the entire island group; Category:Line Islands (Kiribati) is for that part which is in Kiribati. So the latter is a subcategory of the former. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks for the clarification. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
My mistake
User:Antondimak notified me that in this nomination I accidentally forgot to remove Category:People from Karditsa from the list of categories to be merged, contrary to what I said in my rationale which was correct. Is there a possibility to retrieve a list of people that were in this category before merging, in order to recreate the catgory? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait, the only admin action required to fix the mistake is undeleting the category page of Category:People from Karditsa. Thereafter I can easily repopulate the recreated category with articles from the merge target Category:People from Karditsa (regional unit). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Marcocapelle, I have restored the category now but have not populated it. Sorry for the delay. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! It has been fixed now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality has been nominated for merging
Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
A toast!
|
Thank you for deleting my first category (that was deleted). It gave me lots of insight into Wikipedia's guidelines and taught me to create content of higher quality. Painting17 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC) |
Outside view on the category renaming process
Hi Good Olfactory,
I would like to engage you in a constructive conversation about the whole category renaming process, prompted by my frustrated comment here at speedy rename, and your answer to that: "it's not really bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. There is a substantive issue here."
I agree that there is a substantive issue. But I laid out plenty of substantive arguments in the text preceding that. These were ignored in favor of focusing on how exactly the proposed name aligns with C2D. That is why I had written sarcastically: "What a fine time-and-motivation sapping bureaucracy".
It has since gained another Kafkaesque-layer with the way the full discussion has been set up: Suddenly I'm not the nominator anymore; instead the headlining proposal is the alternative suggested by someone else during the speedy rename discussion. Which isn't what one would expect after reading your previous comment: "I think this would require a full discussion". After all, the substance of my proposal wasn't addressed – surely that deserves to be the starting point for "a full discussion"? But I assume that Marcocapelle, whom I would like to invite to this conversation as well, was just following the rules. So I want to speak about those.
Both of you seem dedicated, much appreciated work-horses in all areas to do with categories, so I commend you for all the time and effort you invest in that. But people who have been working inside any type of bureaucratic set-up for a while, generally stop questioning whether that system is structured in the most efficient and user-friendly way. The inertia of the status quo takes hold. It usually requires an outside view, or a freshly incoming view, to stir up thoughts about alternatives. I hope you are open to considering these.
I'm stuck in this process here at the English Wikipedia for the first time. I'm not sure if I have grasped the full extend of the bureaucratic set-up, but this is what it appears like to me:
- 1. A normal user, even one who has reached "extended confirmed user" status, is not able to move/rename a category. In the German Wikipedia, where I've mostly worked in the past 5 years, this is different: I would have simply moved the category name myself, changed the pages containing the old category, and placed a speedy delete request on the previous category name. An admin would have routinely deleted that page within the same hour. I am of course expected to move the page according to the general category naming rules, and in contentious cases my move should be preceded by a discussion. But if I've done nothing obviously wrong, the whole process is over under an hour, sometimes within minutes. And if I have done something wrong, I am reverted and have to then enter a discussion, if I want to challenge that revert.
- 2. Here apparently, a speedy rename discussion ignores all substantive arguments, and only the question of whether the right C2-? criteria was named, is considered. In my case, since the chosen C2D criteria was not met perfectly, it was rejected, instead of considering whether it might have merit anyway. Any attempt to engage on substance is simply met with the repetition of the thin previous statements that refuse to explain what other criteria should have been used, or what other method would have been better. That is deeply frustrating for newcomers, since they run into a wall, and no-one offers any explanation why that wall is there, or how to avoid it the next time.
- 3. So, having been moved to the so-called "full discussion" after whole week suspended in "speedy rename discussion", the set-up suddenly does a 180-degree turn on my proposal – instead choosing one of the commenters from the previous discussion as the new nominator – and forcing me into yet another time-consuming and frustrating text outlining the reasons for my choice. Judging from the first poster after that, these will continue to be ignored. This person too doesn't address the prevalence of counter-examples. Still doesn't point out the rule that assumedly makes the existing examples false, and candidates for a prompt rename. (Just as an aside, there is no way to align the category name perfectly with the article name, since it begins with "Films directed by"! So then insisting on a redundant (director), when most of the cited examples do it differently, ads to my sense of a pedantic, contradictory bureaucracy.)
To sum it up, this is a demotivating experience. Pragmatically, I could just shake my head and leave you to it, going back to the work I actually want to dedicate myself to. But if I look at all the people discussing so many category names on two different discussion pages, I have to appeal to you and your colleagues to reconsider whether the current system is really serving the en-WP well. If there are good reasons why you can't follow the German model, that empowers users to move category names themselves (which would also call for a reassessment of the current restrictive policies for deleting relinks – another very life-sapping experience here in en-WP), then at least think about scrapping the speedy rename page completely, and having only one dedicated discussion page for category renaming. Admins or dedicated page movers could assess themselves within minutes, whether a rename-request posted on a category page meets the criteria for an uncontroversial move. If not, one can go straight to full discussion. That would save many people time and nerves – including You! Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Sprachraum: I do understand the frustration of a speedy nomination being opposed, I have been in that position myself multiple times. You think you chose the short way and now it turns out that you have to take the long way after all. Nominators tend to give up and that is why I "adopt" some of these nominations and take them to full discussion. Or I change them, like in this case.
- By the way, fortunately the long way is no longer such a long way: in the past discussions at full CfD could easily be pending for one or two months while nowadays most discussions are closed after one or two weeks, not the least thanks to Good Olfactory.
- I do not expect consensus for relaxation of the rules here at en.wp, on the other end of the spectrum some editors would favor to make it even more strict and have advocated to also have the creation of categories screened upfront because too much garbage is being created. Personally I am okay with the current situation, it is not ideal but is a fair compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Marcocapelle: thanks for answering – although I have to say that streamlining and shortening the process, as I have suggested, is not the same as "relaxing the rules". I actually agree that far too many categories are being created that are not needed, and don't further the aims of the WP. But my criticism of the current process is not tangential to that. Instead, it is mainly aimed at all the cumbersome and confusing bureaucratic hurdles whose main purpose (or at least accepted collateral damage) indeed seems to be that "Nominators tend to give up". Surely you would agree that a system that tends to do that needs improving?
- Also confusing: Are you saying, I could have / should have taken my proposal to full discussion myself, instead of waiting for an admin to do that? And then I would have remained the nominator? It seemed to me from what I had read until then, that there is an administrated process, which moves speedy requests to full discussion after one week in which someone has objected to the proposal. I even wrote to Good Olfactory (knowing that he is an admin): "So then, please move this to the hallowed full discussion harbour"! Which he didn't, for some reason, but nor did he point out that I should be doing it myself. That comment from me might have also informed you that I hadn't yet internalized all the myriad conventions applicable here. And yet it appears you had a free hand to move my proposal as it was, or to change it, as you decided to do. The effect of the latter is, bluntly put, that my proposal, which I had expressly asked to be debated on the substantive merits, has been highjacked. Anything you are willing to change about that? --Sprachraum (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Sprachraum: there is no default process which moves speedy requests to full discussion after one week in which someone has objected to the proposal. If there is any instruction text that suggests that, it should be changed. So yes you could have moved it to full CfD yourself too, at any moment. But for the outcome of the discussion it is not relevant who is the nominator, because you are still fully entitled to defend your original nomination and if there is consensus to follow your original nomination then the rename will be implemented accordingly by the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle:, ok, but if there is no consensus (as there already doesn't appear to be), the category name still has to change; it cannot stay as it is. Seems to me that by setting up the question differently to my proposal, you have put your hand on the scale, or am I wrong? Please be so kind as to express you opinion on the merits, by making a direct comment in the discussion. --Sprachraum (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also confusing: Are you saying, I could have / should have taken my proposal to full discussion myself, instead of waiting for an admin to do that? And then I would have remained the nominator? It seemed to me from what I had read until then, that there is an administrated process, which moves speedy requests to full discussion after one week in which someone has objected to the proposal. I even wrote to Good Olfactory (knowing that he is an admin): "So then, please move this to the hallowed full discussion harbour"! Which he didn't, for some reason, but nor did he point out that I should be doing it myself. That comment from me might have also informed you that I hadn't yet internalized all the myriad conventions applicable here. And yet it appears you had a free hand to move my proposal as it was, or to change it, as you decided to do. The effect of the latter is, bluntly put, that my proposal, which I had expressly asked to be debated on the substantive merits, has been highjacked. Anything you are willing to change about that? --Sprachraum (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's a lot here, Sprachraum. I read it all. I'm sorry you have had a negative experience with the category renaming system. I think everyone would acknowledge that it's not a perfect system and has several problems. But it has evolved or time by consensus, and I think there is a broad consensus that it is (generally speaking, not specifically with respect to any one discussion) working as intended. I know several users have concerns about the level of participation at CFD being too low. Getting things changed is difficult. I personally will soon have much less time I can devote to WP, so I won't have time to spearhead any changes that I think would be productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reading all of this, Good Olfactory – and of course I appreciate that changing and improving any engrained system is time consuming. I would just counter that the current status quo is very time consuming as well, for all participants. Anyway, all the best for those endeavours of yours that will leave you with less time for WP! Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Good Olfactory,
This category showed up on the empty categories list tonight. I looked at the Speedy Renames list and didn't see it listed there. Is it okay to tag as an empty category? Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, yes, it's ok to delete it. It was merged under C2F. Not sure why it wasn't deleted when that was done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Euthanasia legislation
A tag has been placed on Category:Euthanasia legislation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Viewing deleted category contents
First, I would like to express public displeasure at the actions of @Marcocapelle: for mass nominating ethnic categories. I don't have time to check this website every day, but he seems to have gotten an entire of category tree deleted (Category:People of Fuzhou descent). If I had known of the nomination I would have objected to had I noticed it in the CFD queue... Regardless of whether I wish for pursue some further action, I'd like to know if there is some way for admins to view the contents of deleted categories. I'd like to at least save the information in a list. I know for another recently deleted category Google did not save the cached version of the web page so I wasn't able to retrieve it that way..--Prisencolin (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, there's no way of viewing the previous contents of a deleted category. However, there is a way to find out what was in it. The bot that removes the articles from the categories and deletes the categories is JJMC89 bot III. So if you go to that bot's contributions (Special:Contributions/JJMC89 bot III) and find when the category in question was being deleted, you can see which articles were removed. The bot has so many edits it can be somewhat of a pain to find what you are looking for. In the case of Category:People of Fuzhou descent, the relevant edits were made at 07:03, 16 March 2021, removing Wong Nai Siong and Lee C. Teng from the category. See [5], [6]. There were no others in that category. There are the edits removing articles from related categories starting at 06:58 16 March 2021. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Expatriate rugby union players in the Netherlands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
American writers born in the USSR
This may sound a bit strange, but may I ask what you were considering when you chose to merge Category:American writers born in the USSR? It seems that there was more consensus to keep then merge. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just in terms of numbers, as I counted it, there were more opinions in favour of deletion/merging than there were for keeping. But more significantly, this seemed to fall fairly squarely within the WP:COPPLACE guideline: "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." We don't have other categories for people of one nationality, categorized further by occupation + the status of having born in another country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess
Can you take a look at the latest edit to Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess by User:Chronic2? IMO, this editor has a bit of a WP:RGW axe to grind, given my previous interaction with them, and has turned it into a WP:COATRACK with some material that got rejected at other articles. Since you created the article 10 years ago, I figured you might be interested. Or, if I'm wrong, let me know that as well. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- See here. I'll comment on the talk page as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
yap weng wah
hi i recently created an article called yap weng wah, a malaysian who was a sex offender imprisoned in singapore, and categorised in Category:Malaysian sex offenders, which you deleted seven years ago. what to do? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Malaysian sex offenders NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
this one, Category:Malaysian sex offenders NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I have removed the protection from Category:Malaysian sex offenders, so you can re-create it if you want to. I'm not entirely sure how appropriate these sex offender categories are, but that's another story altogether. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Voodoo practitioners by nationality has been nominated for merging
Category:Voodoo practitioners by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Brazilian Voodoo practitioners has been nominated for merging
Category:Brazilian Voodoo practitioners has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Cypriot expatriates in the Netherlands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Puerto Rican Vodou practitioners
A tag has been placed on Category:Puerto Rican Vodou practitioners requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Primary leader titles
Hi! Hope all is well! Thanks for the updates on the LDS Church's Primary leaders. I had showed/updated them that way, having seen them used that way in the church's style guide, but recognize the potential difference in WP's guide, so thanks for the updates. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Taiwan has been nominated for merging
Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Taiwan has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Good Olfactory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 |