User talk:Kbdank71/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Halls of fame inductees

I'm unclear as to why the CFD closed no consensus. Three in favor of a reverse merge (technically, two plus me saying I don't care which way the merger goes) to one delete seems like a reverse merge consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the time I closed it on feb 4, Category:Halls of Fame inductees had already been deleted as speedy. Seeing as there was no merge target, I took your vote to be rename. The two reverse merges I had to discount, as you can't reverse merge what has been deleted. So one rename to one delete was no consensus. --Kbdank71 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Prole

See proles. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! Beaten to it! :) DuncanHill (talk)
Ah, gotcha, thanks folks. That makes sense. I should have known to just search for it. I'm just so used to having things linked. --Kbdank71 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Sorry about reverting your edit earlier. That was unintentional. Best regards, Lara❤Love 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I figured I got caught in a vandalism revert. --Kbdank71 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Template:User Wiki age

I'm not sure what happened, but your recent edit of this template page removing a deleted category really messed up the template. Now it won't show the months or days. I have no clue how this all works, so I don't know how to fix it. I decided to bring this up here since you were the last one to edit it. --clpo13(talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was removing some categories and removed a pipe by mistake. It's fixed now. --Kbdank71 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --clpo13(talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:2007 elections in England

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 28#Category:2007 elections in England. Though that cat was moved, the related cats in Category:Elections in England by year, that was part of the nomination, were not. I have asked here for this to be done but nothing has happened. I wonder if you could intervene, please? BlueValour (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Angusmclellan#Year_in_Ireland_CfD_closure --Kbdank71 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being dim but I don't see the relevance? What I am looking for is an entirely different category to be put into a consistent form. BlueValour (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you're not being dim, I was. I was in a rush yesterday when I wrote that, sorry. I'll look at it more closely today. --Kbdank71 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. --Kbdank71 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; nice work. BlueValour (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental whatsits CfD

I think the number of us with Keep (possibly rename) as our votes shows that you weren't alone in being unhappy with all three options.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a better option, which is why I just closed it instead of adding to the discussion. --Kbdank71 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD Rugby

per the discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_14#Category:Rugby there is still an ongoing process of what the category is, what sub-cats should be in there, whether it is a pre-schism or not, there are still alot of things in the air.Londo06 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no discussion in the last 24 hours, and the main consensus is to rename it. This does not mean you can't continue to discuss subcats, what to include, etc. But none of that needs the CFD. --Kbdank71 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think as per the discussion there is still a serious question about what is being moved. That has not been answered by any party. I think the renaming of the category is too early as there is confusion abounding, and couple this with a presumptive move of sub-categories for both codes it may cause more trouble.Londo06 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion, everything from Category:Rugby is being moved to Category:Rugby football. If there is confusion about what the preamble should state or what should be in the category, that can be discussed at Category talk:Rugby football. The consensus about the name change itself was clear, and as I read it, required no further discussion. --Kbdank71 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay the preamble has adjusted, and probably will recieve further attention, but I would request you read the CfD section once again as I imagine there will be some fall-out from this.Londo06 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not understanding. What exactly are you asking of me? As I said, there was consensus for the rename. Any other issue, like what should be in the category or what the preamble should say, should be discussed at the category talk page. --Kbdank71 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rouge

I agree, that was well thought out. Nice job. --Kbdank71 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It's nice of you to say : ) - jc37 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember the days when you would ask me my reasoning for a good many of my CFD closes. You've come a long way. --Kbdank71 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If I have, you're definitely one of the reasons. Thank you for that as well. - jc37 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi. You closed the Category:Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award Winners deletion discussion as listify/delete. Do you know what happens next? I can turn it into a list if needed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, waiting for someone to take care of it. If you want to do it, that would be great. --Kbdank71 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, have done. Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tools

In the past User:After Midnight (User:AMbot to be more specific), has helped me with tagging on group nominations. But they seem to be on WikiBreak. I note that you have access to such tools. (smile) I have a few group nominations. Would you be willing to help tag/list? - jc37 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's WP:AWB you mean, then no, not anymore. For some reason, one of the last upgrades caused it to stop working for me. I put in a bug report, but apparently it's not widespread, so it doesn't look like it'll be fixed for me. (they say it has something to do with not being able to connect, but I'm still editing, so...?) Because of that bug, I've written a bot to make CFD changes, but it's a) not approved yet, and b) doesn't have the functionality you're looking for anyway. Sorry. Maybe you can check with User:Cyde to see if his bot can handle it. If/when my bot gets approved, I'll look into adding group nomination tagging. --Kbdank71 14:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thank you anyway : ) - jc37 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hammond B3 organists

Thanks for recreating the category - it hadn't occurred to me that the bots might avoid a redlink there. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Block on Raphael1

Thank you very much for your temporary block on Raphael1. I don't know if it's in response to my AIV report or not, but it's greatly appreciated in either case. Much obliged. Art Smart (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to say that I disagree with your block of Raphael1. I shan't unblock him immediately, but if you could explain where he broke the 3RR, I would appreciate it. He hadn't edited since the last note I placed, so I am personally not convinced that the block will be helpful. Many thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm kinda of doing 4 things at once (looks at other two monitors) but was asked to comment - I think he got to 3RR but didn't breach it (by performing a 4th revert)? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He reverted three times in a 90 minute period here. He did not revert a fourth time. vıdıoman 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Five reverts: here, here, here, here and here, all in a 5-hour span. Art Smart (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[1], [2], and [3]. It wasn't four, no, but "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." He has received no fewer than six warnings, has shown no willingness to discuss anything, and was disruptive. --Kbdank71 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case I agree entirely, though I do think perhaps you could have been a little more descriptive! Many thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that I read what I wrote on Raphael1's talk page, I believe you may be correct. I'll go add a comment to explain it better. Thanks for the suggestion! --Kbdank71 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no problems with what you have just outlined. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly disruptive, and templating regulars with warnings messages obviously to prove a point. Jmlk17 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Raphael1 has been a problem user for a long time. He first came to my attention when he was edit warring for months over the inclusion of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon images. I eventually had to bring him to ArbCom, where he was given three sanctions, including an article ban, probation, and general probation, which is particularly harsh: "Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time." (no expiration period). His latest shtick seems to be attempting to bully and badger users wishing to keep the images on the Muhammad article with repeated irrelevant template talk warning messages. Given that this is not an isolated incident, but rather another in a long line of similar abusive actions, we may want to invoke his general probation clause. Count me in as one of the three. --Cyde Weys 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinda late to the game here, been off all day...didn't even see the brouhaha on my own talk page til just now...but yea, this is clearly disruptive and this user has shown no sign that they plan on letting up. There's clearly a broad consensus regarding Mohammed's article and images, and yes "consensus can change" and all that. but one user does not a consensus-changer make, and he's been acting like it does/should. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The various "orlando" categories

Hi - thank you for closing/fixing those. Still, no sooner had you done all that work they're already started to change the categories again back to what they were before the CFD was completed. See Magic Kingdom for the first example of what I guess will be many. SpikeJones (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be a pain, but we'll just need to keep an eye on things, and block or protect where necessary. --Kbdank71 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. We'll see what happens in the next 24 hours. It looks like we can't block via IP, so we may need to look into putting a semi-protect back on the pages, but we tried that earlier today and a different admin removed it within minutes saying that it was a content dispute and not vandalism. SpikeJones (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. True, it is a content dispute, but that causes edit warring, and blocking, and when you have someone that changes IPs, you wind up chasing your tail by warning, warning, warning, blocking, repeat with new IP. You then have a lot of wasted time for an admin and a bunch of IP blocks that aren't doing anything to stop the problem. OR... you can sprotect it for awhile. A little common sense goes a long way. --Kbdank71 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You and I agree, but admin Ryan Postlethwaite‎ did not as he was the one that pulled the semiprot off Magic Kingdom. Of course, we would have needed the protection on all the other pages as well, but I figured why not start with one first and go from there? SpikeJones (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Were I to be pointy, I'd thank him for undoing an admin action without discussing it, then point out how many different IP addresses have edited that article in the last 24 hours, and ask him if he would like to help out with the blocking, then I'd thank him again for undoing an admin action without discussing it, and explain how wheel wars are not good. But that would be pointy, and so I wouldn't do it. You could try taking it to AN/I... Can't guarantee anything, but there may be consensus for a short sprotect. --Kbdank71 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kbdankbot edit summaries

Currently it's adding "Robot - In trial for approval - CFD 2008 February 23", which is fine for the bot owner, but not for an article reviewer. Please add relevant text to the summary, at a minimum like "changing/deleting category" but more specific would be better. Thanks. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the suggestion. --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wondered if you saw this

and what you thought of it: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Call_for_more_bureaucrats --Kbdank71 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(smile)
Considering that I've asked you previously...
And yes, I still think you should go for it. You're on a short list of a half dozen or so that I can think of who haven't yet said "no" (or who I'm guessing would say no). After you, I think I'm going to (pardon the pun) "hound" Carcharoth : ) - jc37 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And I'm still not saying no. But yesterday I watched people I thought would be better candidates than I swoosh their hats into the ring, just to creep into the ring to get them back. I guess I shouldn't base my decision on what happens to others. --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Omineca Mountains Provincial Park and Protected Area?

I just saw this via your change on Interior Mountains and am a bit concerned; a whole series of stubs for BC provincial parks was created by the BC WikiProject, with the idea "if you build it they will come", and such stubs like others in the project have only basic information. Is this why it was deleted? What you've deleted is one of BC's largest provincial parks, by the way; I note others now redlinked in the page's parks listing which leads med to assume they were also speedily deleted....is there any log of such deletions? And what to do when somebody wants to write an article under that title; they'll be told it was deleted and can't be resintated. Please do not be so hasty with such artifcles and fly things like park stubs and First Nation and community stubs by editors in the regional WikiProject in question, in this case the British Columbia WikiProject.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

similarly absent: Chukachida River Protected Area, Damdochax Protected Area, Pitman River Protected Area - was it you who deleted these as well?Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The deletion was to Omineca Provincial Park and Protected Area. The entire text of the article was "Omineca Provincial Park and Protected Area is a provincial park in British Columbia, Canada." It was speedily deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#A1. If you wish to start it anew, please provide more information than the sentence that was deleted. --Kbdank71 16:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

cat deletions question

Hi Kbdank71 -- I'm slowly dipping my toes into admin waters so as not to screw it up, and I've got an admin question. On the CFD/working/manual page, I listified "Kaiser i Hind recipients". The "listified and ready for deletion" section says "Administrators may delete these categories at will (do not delete the log page)." What does it mean to "not delete the log page"? This particular category for instance says there are no log items. But, I haven't seen a check-off box to delete or not the log pages. How would I delete the log page and how can I be sure I'm not? Tx, Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure. I've always treated /working/manual just like /working. I think it may mean don't delete the discussion page. I wouldn't worry about it, because there is no actual log page you can delete anyway. Thanks for the help at CFD, by the way. --Kbdank71 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well, I did it. It seems to have worked out okay because when I looked at the (now deleted) category page it does indeed still have a "log" attached to it. --Lquilter (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of Fictional characters by religion categories.

I won't argue with the other deletions, but I think the Fictional Jews category should be undeleted. Jews are an ethno-religious group, and one can be Jewish without practicing Judaism. --DrBat (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea with the current name. Even if you limit the category to fictional characters who are ethnically but not religiously Jewish, and even add a preamble to the category as such, it will take a lot of effort to keep it that way. That and there will be people who ignore the preamble and decide to recreate the other religious fictional foos simply because fictional jews exists. Fact is, you can't separate religious and ethnic jews with a category name of fictional jews, because jews means both. If you really want to have a ethnic but not religious jew category for fictional characters, you might want to start a new one with a better, more restrictive name. I'm not sure of the counts of religious vs non-religious jews, but I'm guessing religious jews are the higher number. It would be easier and less time-consuming to create a non-religious jew category and populate it rather than undelete the old category and manually remove the religious jews. --Kbdank71 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying there can only be nonreligious Jews in the category, just that (unlike the other religious characters categories that were deleted) being Jewish is not strictly related to being religious. --DrBat (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Free images with attribution requirements

You closed a previous discussion on this category. I've initiated a new CfD. Gimmetrow 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling alumni categories

No one ever bothered to mention to WP:PW that all those categories were being nominated for deletion. Since this affect hundreds (if not thousands) of articles, that was a pretty asinine thing of the nominator to do. Since WP:DRV recommends trying to solve it with you first since you were the closing admins, what do you recommend? There was no reason at all to delete them when other sports have the same things. Hell, some are worse. there Drew Bledsoe, for example, is in categories for all 3 NFL teams he played for plus quaterback categories for all 3 (i.e. "Dallas Cowboys quarterbacks", "Buffalo Bills quarterbacks"). The way I see it, the major categories should and will be brought back eventually. TJ Spyke 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with the "other sports have them" argument, as professional wrestling isn't a sport. There were many good arguments made for deletion at the discussion, based upon much past precedent. Part of overcategorization (and avoiding it) is not to categorize articles for every little thing possible. The category list becomes unmanageable and useless. The fact that these people were part of different wrestling organizations should be in the article itself, and if it is required to group people together, a list would probably be preferable. --Kbdank71 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Aldaron • T/C 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ontolo-what???

Could you possibly lend a hand with a ridiculous situation that has developed over at CFD? Thanks to the efforts of one very combattive & uncooperative editor (as you will see for yourself), there are now two separate CFDs underway on the very same issue, here and here. (He created a second, duplicate category in the middle of the discussion.)

Anyway, I've posted a request that one of the CFDs be Speedy closed so the discussion can be consolidated in one place. If you can figure out how to deal with that, we might actually be able to proceed with a constructive discussion that leads to a resolution. If you're too busy to deal with this, please let me know & I will take it to another admin. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. --Kbdank71 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed (for now). --Kbdank71 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, thanks alot. I spend enough time at wikipedia as it is, I don't need to sit mesmerized for over 15 minutes staring at that spinning thing on your userpage.  :) --Kbdank71 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, heh. It's a doozy, isn't it? Well, thanks for your expeditious response on that CFD. (Jeez, what a waste of time!) At least he finally came up with a reasonable name for the category -- I wonder if he was ever going to let us know about it?? Yeah, sure. Cgingold (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CFD archive indexes

Hi - I noticed a few days ago my bot had stopped generating monthly alphabetical indexes, i.e. the ones linked from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates. If you ever notice an index missing (the bot is supposed to generate the index after all the discussions on the last day of the month are closed), or problems in any of the indexes, please let me know (it's sensitive to the line that says "The following is an archived discussion" and the other line that says "The result of the discussion was" - both of which changed some time in the last few months). BTW - we should probably split the master archive list by year or something (it's getting kind of large). And, I'm not inclined to generate monthly indexes by day (once upon a time user:HopeSeekr of xMule was generating these), so maybe we should just drop these redlinks. It doesn't seem to me that these are too useful, but what do you think? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll keep an eye on the archive from time to time to make sure it's being generated properly.
Splitting it up by year is a good idea. I'll leave it to you as I don't want to break your bot (unless you're busy; I can do it and you can fix the bot later if you want).
As for the by day redlinks, considering the by day index hasn't been generated since November of 2005 and nobody is comlpaining, sure, nuke it. --Kbdank71 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Politicians with physical disabilities

I have nominated Category:Politicians with physical disabilities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. szyslak (t) 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets

You were the closing admin for the CFD for Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets. What concerns me is that nobody from WikiProject Ships participated in the discussion and that, further, no notice was apparently given on the project’s discussion page. I'm sure that all parties involved acted in good faith, but disappointed that none of us at WP:SHIPS got the chance to comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to give your opinion, but when closing discussions at CFD, I don't have time to try and figure out how many and which wikiprojects would want to have a say in any particular discussion. Especially this one, as notice was given to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military and to the creator of the category (and the fact that I had no idea WP:SHIPS even existed until I read your message). Might I suggest you set up a ships section at the wikiproject deletion sorting? That might help for future XFD's. --Kbdank71 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also good practice for Wikiprojects to tag talk pages of relevant categories so there's notice of the Project's interest, which I see wasn't done here. Postdlf (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that as well. --Kbdank71 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at UCFD

Another backlog ping : ) - jc37 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I bother you with another ping? Thanks, by the way. :) Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you not pull your hair out?

How do you do it? --Kbdank71 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots and lots of practice. There are days, though, I must tell you...
And thank you very much for the barnstar. I don't know about anyone else, but since I've somehow been labelled a "deletionist" (rolls eyes), or whatever I'm being called these days, I'm somehow not considered part of the "regular crowd" or something, so I don't get them as often as I've seen others do. (Not that they have any great Wikipedia value, but personally, I think that being recognised by your fellow Wikipedians is something to treasure : )
So thanks : ) - jc37 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You? Deletionist? Pull the other one. I am... and this is my trusty servant Patsy
And btw, the "regular crowd" is so overrated. And for that matter, so are most barnstars to an extent. There are so many different ones out there and they get tossed around so freely that it somehow devalues them. I used to care that I wasn't getting that many either, having been labeled a deletionist long ago, and never having been part of the regular crowd. Then I realized that I AM a deletionist, especially when it comes to Myspaceification of Wikipedia and specifically categories ("Brown haired wikipedians who enjoy reruns of 'Scrubs' while writing their congresspeople about the plight of the short-legged lemur"? No, sorry, delete.), and that getting barnstars, which I agree is nice, is not why I'm here. Sorry, I'll get down off my soapbox; this went in a different direction than I had intended. --Kbdank71 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Anyone who has interacted with me for any space of time knows that I'm (presumably) some sort of mixture of inclusionist and eventualist. It's just when it comes to categories, it's been made very clear by a multitude of consensus that the bushes need regular pruning. And UCFD in particular. (Incidentally, as someone who's done some of the cleanup of some rather large categories populated by transclusion, I can tell you, that it does affect the servers.) So it's more that I respect consensus.
I've tried to discuss it with someone I respected (they're in some state of GoodBye atm), but they didn't seem to understand, getting hung up on (paraphrasing): "How can you allow them to delete the categories of other people? They'll be after yours next!" Yes, I understand both sides of this: WP:OWN, and WP:NOT#MYSPACE. But on the other hand, a strong, thriving community very clearly helps the project. (Too many example links to bother pasting.) Where to draw the line? Where the community drew it. Project space should be open (within reason, and subject to consensus) to "indirect" support of the project (such as community building) as well as "direct" support (rules and guidelines, and WP:MOS, and helps, and noticeboards, and so on). Userspace is generally given even more lattitude. But category space has been given a much tighter rein. I have little problem with that, as long as we're consistant. (I rather dislike double standards.)
I think I'm starting to ramble here, so I'll just end that with a link: User:Jc37/Sandbox/Wikipedian categories.
As for Barnstars, I agree, to a point, but I still appreciate 'em. (And as such, I tend to give them as well. If I've given one, you can usually be sure I spent some time in deciding which one, and what text, and so on : )
Anyway, this is more lengthy than I intended (as can be a regular occasion for me : )
Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 13:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I've always been of the mind that if people want to collaborate or need assistance with something, a wikiproject does a much better job than any user category can. Especially considering that the majority of user categories are populated by userboxes, not necessarily because someone wanted into it. Anyway, we're both preaching to the choir here, so I'll just get back to cfd. --Kbdank71 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Science fiction writers of color

I'm a bit perplexed by your deletion of Category:Science fiction writers of color. Reading the discussion here and here, I don't see a consensus, and while the discussion certainly got heated at times, it seems like both sides had valid arguments. Can you elaborate on your rationale? Jd4v15 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I discounted the anon's argument as they to this date have two edits total, and Booksellergirl did not put forth an argument to keep, just an ad hominem argument which I also discounted. That left a rough consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating. Did you see the discussion here? The number of people voting to retain outnumbers the votes to delete. Jd4v15 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I did. While I didn't close that discussion, I agree with it. Consensus isn't vote counting. Nor are all opinions created equal. A well thought-out response will trump "I (don't) like it" every day of the week. --Kbdank71 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User categories relating to media and genres

Kbdank71...You are invited to discuss a guideline for the naming and organization of user categories that involve media and genres. - LA @ 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SF Hall of Fame

Hi, I am wondering if the CFD might perhaps be interpreted as a rename to match the other inductees categories? It seems like the commentors were focusing on the deletion aspect but comments within the CFD strike me as supportign a rename for consistency. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the discussion, I'm still not sure there is consensus. Richard Arthur Norton appeared to address delete/ocat aspect of the nomination, but didn't say one way or the other about the rename. Marc Kupper first said to keep in response to the rename, but then commented further, but aside from updating his google counts, didn't clarify if he changed his mind, or reiterated what he said prior, or simply added a comment. He did make a comment regarding consistency, but that was in regards to a different category entirely. RepublicanJacobite's "per Marc Kupper" didn't really help because as I said, I don't know what Marc Kupper wanted.
That said, it might be helpful to just renominate it, leaving off the "or delete per ocat" part. I've found that people do better when you say something like "do this", instead of "well, we could do this, or maybe that, or even the other thing, whatever". Those types of nominations turn into no consensuses more often than not. --Kbdank71 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hautlieu

hi i recentley edited the hautlieu page as someone vandalised it before me and changed the headteachers name etc, i know this isnt how to reply , well at least i dont think it is. All the same I changed the information to be correct. I did not vandalise it at all... sorry if this is not your inbox or whatever. I was simply researching my school and that came up so i felt I had to edit it to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.81.125 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I noticed that after I was reverted myself. --Kbdank71 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Check your links

on the pump policy page about commons. They point to non-existent pages. --Kbdank71 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great catch : )
commons:Commons: - who'd have thunk it? : ) - jc37 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CFD question

Hello (looks at userpage) Kris, you recently closed the CFD discussion here with the decision to delete. I believe you mistakenly skipped deleting two categories: Category:To do, by priority and also Category:To do, priority undefined. I'm wondering why the "priority undefined" category is still populated, since you removed the necessary code from the {{todo}} template (?). I would appreciate some clarification on this matter; thank you for your time. :] ~EdGl (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Short story, it's not done. Better explanation: When you remove a category from a template, any articles show that the category is gone, but the category itself still shows the article. Usually, the mediawiki software is supposed to take care of that, but when the queue is very large, it can take a while. Articles can be removed manually using null edits. That's basically saving an article with no changes. It'll be refreshed and the article will no longer show up in the category. Problem is, there were over 6000 articles in the "priority undefined" category, and that takes a while to run through. Know that I haven't forgotten about it. --Kbdank71 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting; thanks for the explanation. Who would've guessed... ~EdGl (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivial Intersections

Can you please explain why you decided to delete the :Category: Footballers in the RAF and :Category:Footballers in the British Army. The discussion was on going and no clear consensus had been reached. The arguments for deletion were extremely poor. This was a very sloppy admin work on your part. You did even preserve the info in list form or place the articles into other relevant armed forces categories. Can you also explain why these categories were deemed to be trivial intersections but :Category:Politicians with physical disabilities was not. This seems to be a double standard. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note to self: it was Category:Footballers who served in the British Army and Category:Footballers who served in the RAF, and the CFD was here)
Seriously? There was a pretty strong consensus that these were trivial intersections and to delete.
As for Category:Politicians with physical disabilities here, just because one intersection is deemed trivial doesn't mean every intersection is. You might want to check with User:Cgingold and User:Good Olfactory (both of whom wanted to keep the politician category and delete both of the footballers) for their reasoning if you feel it's a double standard. --Kbdank71 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe you have a different understanding of the word consensus to the rest of us. At least three editors voted to keep the categories and a fourth editor has added to them so there was by no means a broad agreement to delete. Are you Robert Mugabe in disguise ? You decided to delete these categories while keeping the other. So you should explain. Don’t pass the buck. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is Robert Mugabe? --Kbdank71 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry what planet are you on. Robert Mugabe the so-called president of Zimbabwe, who like yourself seems unable to count in a vote Djln--Djln (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No matter, I'll let the DRV speak for itself. Perhaps everyone there has no idea what consensus means either. Or maybe it's just you. --Kbdank71 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't help but notice that the majortity of the footballers that were in the British Army and RAF categories that you decided delete have not been recategorised into relevant armed forces categories. You said you would do this. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations

I closed this, and see the problematic code, but I think I would rather let you dabble in fixing it : ) - jc37 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I notified User_talk:John254#js_in_category. It would appear he made the change so his monobook wouldn't appear in Category:Ended featured picture nominations, but then someone went ahead and created Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations for some reason. I honestly don't know what the solution to this would be (I'm not that strong in js, and I don't want to go breaking his script). Hopefully he'll know what to do. --Kbdank71 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cuprus footballer

  • I understand, and agree, but until the discussion is closed, the categories in question should not be depopulated. People who are involved in the discussion will not be able to accurately judge the merits of a category if it has been emptied. Plus, there is the chance that there will be no consensus, which defaults to keep. --Kbdank71 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Well first, wow. There were apparently quite a few of these : )

Second, there are a bunch in Category:User namespace templates that need to be in Category:Userboxes, per that same nom. Would you be willing to help? (I kinda feel like I'm asking a marathon runner if he would like to run an additional couple of km, after running a 50k.) - jc37 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And btw, Kbdankbot is all over my watchlist. (And I'm meaning dozens (hundreds?) of pages.) I must have more userbox related pages in my watchlist than I had realised. Time for some pruning : ) - jc37 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Kbdankbot was all over a lot of people's watchlist yesterday. I'm surprised I didn't get in to an angry mob. Sure, I'll help. Question though. What exactly do you need done? Per the nom, I wasn't putting the userboxes anywhere, just removing them from the main 6 categories. I didn't take you up on your offer of "The individual userboxes can be re-integrated into the topical subcats at editorial discretion" as I wouldn't have been able to use the bot. So for the ones in Category:User namespace templates, do you want them just removed as well, or moved to Category:Userboxes, or just the subcats moved? --Kbdank71 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw (too late) that you removed the cats from all the individual userboxes. That was indeed the nom. However, another editor convinced me that perhaps it would be a good idea to place all the userboxes which were not sub-catted into a "holding category" so that "someone" could sub cat into appropriate subcats at their leisure. See: User_talk:Koavf#Userboxes. (Also, please feel free to keep an eye on the the user. They don't seem to quite have a handle yet on "non-admin closures". And perhaps may need some review/coaching/advice.)
As for the request above, I was more hoping for the subcats to be moved to Wikipedia:Userboxes. At some point, I'm going to go through and "sort" the subcats (some are userbox cats, some are decidedly not). Essentially, when done (with this stage, anyway), we should have:
Make sense? - jc37 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes-ish. The more I look at this the more I see it needs LOTS of work. I would even recommend renaming the Category:Userboxes subcats from "Foo user templates" to "Foo userboxes". I mean, obviously they are userbox templates, sure, but for all intents and purposes, they are userboxes. Nobody says "Woot, I have 489 userbox templates on my user page". I'll start working on the stuff above between CFD and RL work. Maybe we can just be bold and just fix everything. --Kbdank71 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nod about the "LOTS of work" : )
The main reason for the nom was to a.)see if there were any concerns/issues with the plan, and b.) hopefully have someone with a bot do some of the heavy lifting, especially for moving/removing the individual userboxes, and moving the subcats. That's just a bit much for me to do one-at-a-time : )
Once we have the main subcat sorting done, we can always go and have the subcats renamed to a single convention.
Other than that, it's pretty much all WP:BOLD work. In my experience, no one really cares how they're sorted, as long as they're sorted.
(I'm starting to understand how Mike Selinker felt when he was doing those group noms to standardise naming conventions of the Wikipedian categories...)
And by the way... Thanks so much for your help : ) - jc37 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Happy to help.
Question: You said: I was more hoping for the subcats to be moved to Wikipedia:Userboxes. Did you mean moved to Category:Userboxes? --Kbdank71 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. YOu don't know how often I've typed "Wikipedia:Userboxes" in the last couple weeks... - jc37 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Laughter

I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the above made me laugh quite out loud : ) - jc37 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My keyboard had a near-death experience... ;) Black Falcon (Talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<bowing> I aim to please.  :) --Kbdank71 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

userpage

What´s the vandalism, Its my userpage ?? Cyrus111 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When you are making wholesale edits to a userpage when you are not logged in, it can be viewed as vandalism. That's why I requested if you want to make the changes to log in. Thank you. --Kbdank71 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Logged in or not, in my case it does not make any difference... (O) (O) Cyrus111 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC) thx for your observant work though.

Please reconsider the close for Category:Visitor attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut

I saw no consensus in that discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14, which should revert to "keep". Three in support of renaming, two directly wanting to "keep" and one "comment" that, when you get right down to it, preferred keeping separate names (although that editor wanted to rename the "Visitor attractions" categories throughout Wikipedia). Nor does there seem to be any policy or guideline pointing to a rename, and the "keep" argument was to point out that the articles in this category are different in nature from the articles in the "Visitor attractions" categories. So please reconsider. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Emergency medical responder levels

You recently closed the discussion of Category:Emergency medical responder levels as delete without adequate consideration of the consequences of the deletion. I was the creator of this category and only found out about this Cfd when the category was deleted from one of the articles. This category was created when I began to clean up Category:Emergency medical services (formerly Category:Prehospital care]]).

Category:Emergency medical responder levels formerly contained 10 articles (according to Special:Contributions/Kbdankbot). As the result of this category's deletion, many articles no longer in any category - this was the only category they were in (Medic, FP-C, Certified first responder). For other articles, they are now only in stub categories (Flight medic, First responder). For others, they are no longer within the Category:Emergency medical services hierarchy (Paramedic, Emergency medical technician). The remaining three articles are placed in Category:Emergency medical services in the United States as well, as they are unique to the US (EMT Intermediate, EMT Basic, AEMT-CC).

I would like you to reconsider your decision to close the Cfd. I created the category as a way to organize all the "people who respond to medical emergencies" into one group. The original nominator suggested that they were not "levels," and the category could be renamed to better reflect its contents. The one supporting editor stated that these are mostly used in the US. While this may be true, the category is not limited to US responders. I do not think there are any other country-specific responder levels with articles on Wikipedia.

Even if the category was to be deleted, the articles should have been placed in another category - not left uncategorized ("Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category."). If the category truly does not belong, then an appropriate action would be to merge with another category, or disperse to a few others.

Because {{Emergency medicine}} is a world-wide template, I'm not sure the US-only levels belong there (there has been recent discussion of removing content for that same reason). Additionally, an article/list for emergency medical responders should probably exist, but that does not solve the problem of categorization of its articles.

Given that all these articles with a common theme (people who respond to medical emergencies) need to be categorized, I am inclined to place them all into a new category for the same purpose - to keep Category:Emergency medical services clutter-free, but still keeping all these related occupations together within that hierarchy. Since the original nominator was open to renaming the category, I would be inclined to create Category:Emergency medical responders as a place for these 10 articles. Please reply here for an orderly discussion. Thanks. --Scott Alter 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The nominator actually said "While a rename might be possible, converting to a list and adding more information would provide a better example of how these articles relate to each other." (emphasis mine) Have you considered this? --Kbdank71 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I do think it is very appropriate to have a list, or even more preferably, an overview article (such as Emergency medical responder). One such list already exists for US responders (Emergency medical responder levels by state). However, we still face the question, where should these articles be categorized? My issue is that these articles have no where to be categorized. Currently, there are several articles without categories (or only stub categories). They will soon be tagged as uncategorized. In what category should these these articles be placed? The "emergency medical responders" category was created to give these articles a category that groups similar articles. To make an analogy, if you equate emergency medical services to a sport (say football), these different responders are like different football positions. They should all be grouped together, as they all participants in the healthcare team that treat patients outside of the hospital. --Scott Alter 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know where they should go, or even if they should all be in the same category. Sometimes, there is no answer to that question. If a category for these articles is absolutely necessary, which I'm not yet convinced it is, I guess Category:Emergency medical services is as good as any. --Kbdank71 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is not absolutely necessary to place these articles into a category? I don't think you really meant that, since all articles on Wikipedia are categorized into at least one category. For many of these articles, you deleted the only category they were in - so a new category must be found for these articles.
Originally, there were hundreds of articles in Category:Emergency medical services, which I have been working to diffuse and create an organized hierarchy. I do not want to start adding to the clutter that once was Category:Emergency medical services (formerly Category:Prehospital care). I previously went through all of the articles in Category:Emergency medical services and grouped the related articles to create an appropriate hierarchy. The grouping of these articles is logical and the only appropriate way to organize them without them being in the generic Category:Emergency medical services. I still think the remaining articles in Category:Emergency medical services should be diffused, but I am still undecided on how to do so.
I am also considering bringing this to deletion review. I think it is bad practice to completely delete a category when some articles are only in that one category - leaving the articles without any categories. Also, I don't think consensus was reached in the Cfd. One person wanting a "listify," and another wanting "delete" without further discussion is hardly consensus for deleting a new, useful category. A more appropriate action would have been to relist it in an attempt to seek additional opinions.
Since I do think this category needs to exist (whether by the former name, or by Catgory:Emergency medical responders), I am going to take further action. As I see it, my options are to go to deletion review on the basis I previously mentioned, or I can create a new category for these articles (with plans to create an overview article, Emergency medical responder, as per the nominator's suggestion). If the new category is put up for Cfd again, I'll be watching it and take part in the discussion. Do you have a suggestion as to my course of action? --Scott Alter 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I said they don't have to be in the same category. IE, the category that was just deleted does not need to be recreated with a different name. Put article a in category y, article b in category z, etc. That will solve your problem of having uncategorized articles.
You can take it to deletion review if you wish, but I'm not sure you'll get anywhere with "but now article x has no categories" as a reason. When I close CFD discussions, that's what I do. If the consensus is delete, it's not up to me to make sure all of the articles are categorized. That's what Special:UncategorizedPages is for, or for our more bold editors, {{Sofixit}}.
As for the CFD discussion, listify does end with the deletion of the category, so even if I closed it as listify, the category would still be gone. I would have relisted it, but there was no opposition.
Bottom line, I really have no opinion on this category. As I said, I don't see the need for it, but if you feel these need a category like Catgory:Emergency medical responders, be bold and create it. --Kbdank71 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unremarkable aircraft features

Hi Kbdank. As the nom for that CfD, I'm of course disappointed with the outcome. I've given it a week to reflect on what happened, and have tried to get a discussion going with other WikiProject Aircraft contributors about how we might use these categories if we're effectively "stuck with them".

I guess that what I'm most curious about now is which arguments for keeping you found most compelling? As far as I could tell (and of course, I'm sure I'm not exactly impartial here!) the arguments from the "keep" camp came straight out of "Arguments to Avoid" - mainly WP:HARMLESS and WP:USEFUL. Ironically, the most elegant rebuttal of the other argument - that (some) of these categories reflect how real-world regulatory authorities classify aircraft - is one I just stumbled across on your userpage when coming here to post this note, that "trivial categories bury the article itself". The retention of these categories has meant that a significant and slowly increasing number of Wikipedia's articles about aircraft have three or four of these trivial categories littering them up.

I'm hoping that there's a reason to keep that my own standpoint has blinded me from seeing :)

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain. In re-reading the discussion, I agreed with pretty much every argument and rebuttal you put forth. That, however, is my own personal opinion, which I do my best to not influence me when I close CFD discussions. Unfortunately, I think I may have given undue weight to the harmless and useful arguments. I can't say I would have closed it as delete, but rather no consensus. That would have given you more leeway if you wanted to renominate the categories. What I would recommend is get some sort of consensus at WP:AIR and then renominate them in a month or so. Remind me of this and I'll make sure I explain this close. The only issue I can see is the user that is currently populating the cats. As you did in this discussion, you're going to get massive opposition from him. Consensus at WP:AIR will definitely help your cause. I wish I could give you a reason to keep, but I don't have one. BTW, if you want to take this to deletion review, I won't object. --Kbdank71 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response and the advice. Strangely, the most massive opposition came not from the person populating the categories, but their original creator, who as far as I can tell has done nothing to populate them since an initial burst of enthusiasm at the time of their creation nearly two years ago. I'll keep in touch once WP:AIR has talked about this some more. It's a pity that consensus didn't have to be formed to create these categories :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of two categories

I was curious as to how it is decided whether or not a category is deleted. I am referring specifically to Category:Rumiko Takahashi and Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga. The former was 5 to 4, I believe and the latter was tied. It didn't seem like they should have been deleted. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, aside from the subcategories, which were adequately categorized elsewhere, the two categories had essentially the same contents, which were also listed in the template, which links the articles together (which is the purpose of a category). So there was lots of duplication. The template does an excellent job of not only linking the articles, but also "categorizes" the articles themselves into Major works, Other magna, and Related anime, something that a category cannot do. And if anything, like the subcats or any other articles, are not in the template and need to be, anyone can add them to it. Now to get to the "vote counts". As was pointed out in the first discussion, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep. That argument does not address the category being discussed or why we should keep it. The other keep was answered by the template's existence. And the rename wanted to categorize it in Category:Magna by author, which doesn't exist, and when pressed, wasn't even sure if it should be created. None of them answered the nomination's assertion that Manga is generally categorized genre, demographic, topic, etc, but not writer. In the second discussion, I discounted the IP's comments for being too new (and it didn't help that they hadn't edited in a week). And I gave less weight to the "analogous to novels by author categories" arguments, because as I mentioned above, there is no Category:Magna by author. Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga certainly isn't analogous to Category:Novels by author. That left a strong consensus to delete in both discussions. --Kbdank71 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB concerns

Cross-posted at User talk:Black Falcon

Would you please check the recent contributions history of User:Koavf. See also User talk:Koavf, where I've left a few questions.

I think that this is an enthusiastic editor who started to cross the line to disruption, and may have done so quite a while ago, but I'm just now seeing the extent of the potential damage.

Am I missing something here? I would strongly appreciate your thoughts/insight. - jc37 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at BF's talk page. --Kbdank71 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realise this conversation/issue is winding down, but I've added a comment regarding Koavf and speedy CfDs at Black Falcon's talk page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please offer your thoughts on Koavf's question regarding this method of listing speedily renamed categories for deletion? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Kbdank71 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, thank you! --Kbdank71 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

\o/ category intersects \o/

David Gerard, who knows everything that's going on, or so it seems, spilled the beans about category intersets, long promised, not here yet. But it seems that they will be here soon. Obviously that'll make a lot of difference to categorisation. Thread on wikitech-l here may be of interest. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category intersection? What concerns me is that the techies may be going for a too-good solution. Something more data-warehousy, built "overnight" in the job queue, would likely do. There is a clunky category intersect thing now , like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit

Thank you for fixing the link there; I hadn't realized that the deletion review doesn't just do that autmatically as I haven't nominated that many articles before. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't know either (I've never brought anything to DRV). --Kbdank71 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Procedurally, I am suppose to discuss a WP:DRV with the closing admin. I am considering DRVing Category:Chicago musicals which was deleted as part of a mass deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_6#Category:Musicals_by_nationality. I continue to feel that Chicago was inappropriately included in this mass deletion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From re-reading the discussion, it was clear that not one other person a) wanted to keep any of the categories under discussion, and b) thought Chicago musicals should have been treated differently. You were the only one. I don't see how I closed it incorrectly. --Kbdank71 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just my personal opinion, but, unless I'm missing something here, this one's actually problematic in that someone else besides TTT removed this cat from the group nom and attempted to relist, and then was reverted. In my experience, if there is a legitimate concern, any member of a group nom can be split to its own nomination. So, the issue isn't the closure, it's the reversion by another editor that doesn't seem to have been noticed. In my opinion it probably should be relisted. However, if I'm missing something (and that's entirely possible) please let me know. - jc37 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that, but the "someone else" that relisted Chicago on its own was User:Omtay38, the nominator of the umbrella nom. Not only that, but he made it clear that the only reason he was splitting it apart was because TTT removed it from the umbrella nom (without relisting it at all). Finally, there is a rather large section in the umbrella nomination that deals strictly with the Chicago cat, and whether or not it should be listed with the rest. TTT was the only one, under any listing and reason, that wanted it kept. That's why I'm standing by the close. --Kbdank71 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.
If TTT plans on taking this to DRV, I suggest he indicate rather clearly in the request why he feels that this cat should have been split to a separate nom, contrary to the person who reverted, and Kbdank's points above.And also be prepared to fully and concretely describe/define its intended usage, as that appeared to be the main issue with the nationality cats. And note that, in my opinion, at least, the best he should hope for is a relisting. Please let me know if such a request is made. - jc37 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: bot destroys categories

Hey, Your bot is changing the Category:Afrikaners to Category:Akrikaner people. Two thing: First note the spelling Akrikaner instead of Afrikaner! Second: Why change the category at all? Afrikaners is a well accepted term for the cultural or ethnic group it is used for. Michel Doortmont (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What at all? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_20#Categories:People_by_race_or_ethnicity. Why the misspelling? That's how it was nominated. I just copied and pasted. I'll fix it. --Kbdank71 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

High school alumni (United States)

I read the discussion on the discussion page, and unless I am missing something, you came to the wrong conclusion. You said the result of the discussion was to delete, but by my count there were only 5 votes for deletion and 11 keep, 2 voted keep most. How did you arrive at your conclusion to delete?Marylandstater (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the closing, they fail WP:V. Even though consensus is not vote counting, I understand your concern. Problem is, I cannot ignore a policy like WP:V just because 13 people wanted to. --Kbdank71WP:V 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, to say the least, that you chose to close the debate on a basis not canvassed in the discussion, instead of simply adding your view to the debate at an earlier stage. Participants in the debate have been presented with a fait accompli and no chance to debate this. You commented in closing that "If loss of information is a concern, the few that are sourced could be added to the school article", but then made this more difficult by proceeding straight away to deletion of the categories, instead of listifying as even some of the "delete" commentators wanted. Saying that the categories fail WP:V is an odd one, too - if some articles lack the sources, then the articles can be improved. Your decision that the categories should be deleted has the effect of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Presumably, by your reasoning, any category that is created with fully-sourced articles would be valid - a decision that would go against other closes you've made in this area - so is "non-defining" an unarticulated reason for your decision here? I'd like you to reconsider, please. Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:V relates to the placing of an article in a category, not to the existence of the category. This is one of the most remarkable closures. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Eg to pick one from your recent deletion list, Larry Adler is placed at Baltimore City here. You might as well delete all his categories on the grounds that nothing is explicitly cited in his article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:V was brought up by Vegaswikian two days ago, it wasn't something I pulled out of a hat. Besides, are you saying we can ignore WP:V, a wikipedia policy, because some people wanted to? Or that WP:V is debatable? Perhaps you are correct about the category failing WP:V. Without sources, though, the articles in the category are. Articles being in categories need verification just as any other fact added to the article. So, since the facts in the article aren't verified, we can remove the articles from the category, which leaves you with a bunch of empty categories which will be deleted.
But, since it's pretty clear that this won't pass a DRV, and I don't have the patience to fight a vote-count, if anyone wants to strike my comments from the close and put their own name to a keep, I'll go ahead and revert the moves I've made so far.
And as for Larry Adler, you're right. If something isn't cited, it should not be in the article. If you can show me where policy dictates otherwise, I'll change my mind. --Kbdank71 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you didn't feel bullied! Anyway, whilst I'm here, and to show that I do notice who does the real work at CfD... BencherliteTalk 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


The XfD Barnstar
For your hours of unsung work at WP:CFD, closing all those discussions that no-one else got round to doing, and for your dedication to providing Wikipedia with a logical and coherent category structure, this barnstar seems scant reward. BencherliteTalk 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Nah, I knew I'd have a very hard time explaining that close. Thanks for the barnstar! --Kbdank71 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am with Bencherlite on the barnstar too. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have one of these already? (smacks self)
Needless to say (though I will anyway) you obviously deserve it : ) - jc37 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure do, you and BF gave me one. (Thanks again!) --Kbdank71 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am saddened that you were talked out of your correct closing after the fact of the close. Your acknowledgement that these categories do not pass policy coupled with the non-defining nature of high school graduate categories indiates that your original closing was correct and nothing offered up after the closure by the editors in question justifies reversing your correct delete closure. Otto4711 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    I explained above why I did it. I still don't believe they are within policy. --Kbdank71 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy trumps consensus. 13 or 113 people clamoring to keep categories that violate policies should not stand against the policy violation. Stick to your guns next time. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't need to tell me that. Unfortunately, the same 13 or 113 people usually show up at DRV just to complain that consensus was not followed. For example, I told someone one time that I would delete Category:Jimbo is a poo head even if everyone wanted to keep it, and I got told I would be wrong, because I went against consensus. I would love to stick to my guns, but I'll lose every time. --Kbdank71 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally appreciate Kbdank71's flexibility in such matters. And I LMAO every time I see Otto4711 bark out an order like "Stick to your guns next time". He actually believes he's in charge and can boss everyone around. I'm surprised he doesn't sign Jimbo's name when he edits. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is merely a suggestion, but you may wish to consider your tone. You're probably not doing yourself an favours in how you are (and will be) perceived. As for me, my respect for Kbdank71 is deep, and well-known. And while I have at times strongly agreed, and at other times strongly disagreed, with Otto4711, I would not accuse him of bad faith. I believe that he is merely attempting to do what he feels is right, and relies (usually) upon consensus for the implementation of that. I think that there are many who could look to follow his example. - jc37 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this[5].

I'm not going to get involved in that discussion (my level of personal involvement is a little too high to remain objective), but that is one of the more...hmmm, interesting, rationales I've seen advanced for how to determine the outcome of a RFA. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NP. I understand he's talking in the abstract, but I still think it's, well, I'd use something stronger than "interesting" to describe it. --Kbdank71 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Chronicles of Narnia creatures

I have nominated Category:The Chronicles of Narnia creatures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal cuisine

Seems like this category did not get deleted with the rest from the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 12#Seasonal cuisine discussion. Since I participated, I can't clean this up. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alice in Chains

Looks like you or your bot left the CfD category tags in this category after a no consensus close. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was me, not my bot. [6] this edit moved the cfd categories, so when I removed the tag, I missed them. Thanks for the cleanup. I'll check the Narnia thing when I get a chance, I'm on my way out the door now. --Kbdank71 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenwichers

By delete, do you mean upmerge to Category:People from Manhattan? (Cf the Riverdalistas, who got upmerged after being subjected to waterboarding etc.) The rationale for upmerge is that they are in Category:People from Manhattan via the disputed subcat, and Category:People from Manhattan has not been discussed in the cfd. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out, that option wasn't discussed in the CFD (why, I have no idea). I wasn't going to use Riverdale as a precedent, although it probably could have been one, because the main arguments in that CFD were merge or not merge, whereas in Greenwich it was delete or not delete. And to be perfectly honest, I was leery in doing a merge to people from manhattan because of the same problem with Riverdale, which is subjectivity. Nobody answered "how long" one needs to be from an area to be categorized as a person from that town. There were some articles where the only mention of the town in the article is that the person died in a hospital there. Sorry, that does not mean you are "from" there. It also has to do with the order I closed them in. If I had done Greenwich first (which had excellent arguments for deletion), I might not have merged the Riverdale one at all. --Kbdank71 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: People from Greenwich Village

In reference to the CFD: Category: People from Greenwich Village, I'm wondering how you came up with delete as the decision. I see 4 deletes (+1 for the nom) and 6 keeps in the discussion. Perhaps I don't fully understand the decision making process. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD isn't a vote count, it's a discussion. When closing, I need to determine strength of arguments, as they are not all created equal. In this case, the nominator made very strong arguments as to why notibility (and at times, verifiability) is a problem. As I said in the closing, this doesn't mean that the neighborhood isn't notable, just that people aren't notable for living there, they are notable for other reasons. --Kbdank71 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: People from Riverdale, New York

There seems to be an unfortunate pattern here of misunderstanding the role of consensus, one of teh core, bedrock principals of Wikipedia. While you have shown that it is possible to find rationalizations to delete these categories, you have chosen to ignore equally valid arguments for retention and inserted your own personal bias in this regard in direct contravention of Wikiepdia policy. For both the Riverdale and Greenwich Village categories, these are defining characteristics that meet the exact definition of what categories are intended to serve. Your rant about where will this end and the inane supposition that this will lead to categories for people by apartment is completely and totally irrelevant to the facts and arguments raised and to the relevant Wikipedia policy. A rather simple refutation to your excuse for deletion is to limit people from categories to those places that have articles. I ask you to review and reconsider your arbitrary and unjustifiable decision before taking appropriate administrative action to have it overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the arguments to delete much more compelling than the ones to delete. My "rant" and "inane supposition" was a direct response to your own suggestion that this will lead to "people from earth". Am I not allowed to point out how your argument was factually weak? As I said above, not every argument is created equal. Were they all valid? Sure. But if I treat them all equally, as you want me to do, then CFD is nothing more than a vote count, and that is a misunderstanding of consensus. --Kbdank71 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Were they all valid? Sure." is exactly the situation where consensus should be respected. As an administrator, your primary role and responsibility is to respect and enforce consensus, not to inject your biases. More disturbing is that the "arguments" for deletion posed in the nomination were addressed and do not justify deletion under Wikipedia policy. All you have done is to insert your own deletionist bias into the process in a situation where consensus clearly is against the unjustifiable rationalizations you have offered for deletion. I have already offered a clear break line to your nonsensical "where will this lead to" argument: limit people from categories to those places that have articles. I strongly suggest you revisit this close and address the violations of Wikipedia policy to obviate the wasted time and effort needed to have your decision overturned on an administrative basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it humorous that someone who added people to a category with a) zero sourcing and b) not even a mention of Riverdale in the article itself, would lecture me on policy. I've already explained that I found the delete arguments to be stronger; as an admin who closes xfd discussions, I am certainly permitted to weigh arguments. It's clear that you disagree, so rather than continue what looks to be a fruitless exercise for both of us, please nominate this at deletion review. --Kbdank71 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it funny that an administrator can be so utterly unfamiliar with the process of adding sources. Reliable and verifiable sources have been provided documenting the residence in Riverdale for at least half of the individuals so designated. It requires a unique level arrogance to decide after the fact that the absence of a source for one of the individuals listed is a valid excuse to delete the entire category in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. As you have made clear that you refuse to respect consensus and will not correct your abusive and improper deletion, the next step is to have it overturned. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than continue what looks to be a fruitless exercise for both of us, please nominate this at deletion review. --Kbdank71 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, you'd come across as less of a Dick if at the DRV you stayed away from the ad hominem arguments. --Kbdank71 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for High school alumni (United States)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of High school alumni (United States). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

question about oldcfdfull

Please check my comment on creating a template only for user category discussions [7] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Signatories deletion

Excellent close. Excellent close. Well-reasoned, well-explained, overall exactly the sort of close that a contentious CFD like this should have. If there's an "excelent close" barnstar point me to it and it's yours. Otto4711 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What's unfortunate is too many people will just count the votes and come back at me with "bad admin, you ignored consensus" (hmm, deja vu...), when the consensus policy clearly states Convincing arguments are needed, and The final course of action is usually decided upon during discussion. This is another reason for providing a rationale during a poll, not just a support. As I've repeatedly said, not all arguments are created equal; if they were, consensus would be nothing more than a vote count. I found some arguments convincing, and others not. Anyway, sorry, seem to have gone off on a tangent there. --Kbdank71 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Koavf

I hesitate to bring this up again, but seeing as how you're currently not wearing any pants, maybe you can handle it.

More editors than just me are still encountering problems with Koavf's CFD behaviour. Honestly, through this all I've tried to be as clear (while remaining polite) as possible, but for some reason he's just not "getting" some things and he's doing the same types of things again and again. I feel a tad petty bringing it up over and over again with him, but it's to the point where I at least find it disruptive b/c I feel like I should "keep and eye on" him to make sure he's not doing anything off the wall. I imagine User:Rockfang may be feeling the same way.

By the way, I'm copying this message to the other admins who joined in on the recent conversation on Koavf's talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw his user talk page. Looks like we've got 48 hours to come up with an answer to the problem. --Kbdank71 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dublin

Hi Kbdank

I usually like your CFD closures, but I was surprised by your closure of the CfR on Category:People from Dublin.

I wasn't aware of the discussion until I saw my watchlist showed bot implementing the change after the CFD debate was closed, and when I looked at it I wished I had known about it. Apart from the nominator, there were only two contributors, one of whom objected to the renaming. Given the poor turnout and the lack of unanimity, I think that it would have been better to have closed it as no consenus, or better still to have relisted the debate for more input (and possibly dropped a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland), so that some Irish editors would have been aware of it; I certainly would have pointed out that it makes little sense to create inconsistency by renaming only this category when the parent cat is Cat:Dublin (without the parenthesised suffix), and there are dozens of similarly-named "foo in Dublin" subcats.

Please will you relist it to generate a wider consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read it to be unopposed. Johnbod said he was dubious (not a ringing endorsement to oppose) and his comment stated "Oddly Category:People from Durham seems to be people from County Durham" which to me is an excellent reason to disambiguate. Had I come across the discussion prior to closing it, the comments made (even Johnbod's) would have convinced me to support the rename. As for the few people that were participating, that's normal for CFD. If we needed a quorum to do anything, not much would ever get done. For possibly contentious issues, I have left things open longer to get more opinions. This I didn't think was contentious. Nor did I think it particularly needed Irish input. It was a simple disambig like all of the others that came before it, not anything fiery like merging Category:People from Ireland to Category:People from the United Kingdom. So from where I'm sitting, it doesn't make any sense for me to relist it. That said, and considering for all intents and purposes the rename is complete, I wouldn't have any issues with you nominating it at CFD to rename it back the way it was (or, as much as I dislike having my "You've got mail" banner turn out to be a DRV notice, DRV, although IMO, you'd have better luck at CFD, because as I've just outlined, there wasn't much wrong with the close itself). I might ask you, though, to consider why. Anything that helps people is a good thing, and even though the Irish people may know and understand that "Dublin" means the city and "County Dublin" means the county, for the rest of the world it may be a little less clear (especially when "Durham" means the county). And so the disambig is quite helpful. That said, I need to get to work screwing up more CFD's (I seem to be on a roll lately, as you can see above)  ;) --Kbdank71 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)