Hi. Recently I requested a rename of Category:ISO 8859 to Category:ISO/IEC 8859. I had already recategorized the articles to the new category, and created a new, temporary page at Category:ISO/IEC 8859, with the intention that Category:ISO 8859 would be moved over it to preserve old edit history. However, maybe I did not make clear I was asking for a rename rather then delete before you deleted it. So now I am requesting that you undelete the old category and process the move correctly. Lmatt ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you think there might be some canvassing or sockpupperty going on in this discussion? Thanks.-- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Mike. I just saw your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 30#Category:Children's books about death and agree with it, but it does mean the attribution has been lost. Is there any way you could follow Roscelese's suggestion at the CfD of undeleting it, then moving it to, say, Talk:Children's books about death/original and then deleting the redirect so the category no longer exists, but attribution is preserved? Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike. User:69.46.35.69 has weighed in quite vigorously on a number of noms relating to User:Target for Today and judging from the IP's edit history. it would appear that they're one and the same. There's no socking or duplicate !voting that I can see, so I suppose there's nothing to be done, right? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why you said "cfd close" on categories that still have open CFD discussions on them? 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 07:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_19#.28X.29-related_websites was just closed. In the process of trying to re-sort the websites in Category:Animation-related websites which offer web animation (instead of being about animation) I noticed another related category Category:Web animation and its subcategory Category:Animated internet series which is closely related. What do you think? Are you up for moving the pages which are not about animation, and then renominating the category? – Pnm ( talk) 03:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. Would you mind terribly reviewing your decision on the LGBT sportspeople categories? That discussion can be found here. I ask for four reasons:
Thanks for your time and attention. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I just closed this CFD and left a note asking User:Freechild to create the list(s). Would you watch the categories and delete them when listified? If he doesn't get round to it within a sensible time then I'd be prepared to start the page(s). – Fayenatic (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Would one of you look at the recent page history of the article I just edited and remove any allegations that need to be purged? assuming you have Rollback. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Fayenatic, since the discussion about the RfA is here, I thought I'd drop this here rather than your talk page (we can move it there if you like, of course).
If you wouldn't mind, would you look at the discussion I had at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dpmuk (and on the talk page), and tell me what you think?
Also, with the various comments in mind, please consider expanding your answers to questions in your nom. You don't have to obviously, and you're doing quite well without, it's merely a suggestion : ) - jc37 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether it would be unwise to post the following after the question about celeb fans having a COI:
I know that RFA is not a joke. Best to forget it? Or OK provided I don't append "and because it was mildly amusing"?– Fayenatic (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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 discussionpage. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I was never given a chance to respond to the Darwin category moves and it should have been moved to the Opposed nominations section. Darwin, NT is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a location, all the others are small and not really well known and Charles Darwin the strangely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Darwin. Bidgee ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Mike, thanks again for nominating me at RfA. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm slowly looking at those that remain. I noticed that most of the regular closers have comments thus opting out of being able to close this series. So I may be the only regular left to do the closes. The ones that have been closed are where there was a clear consensus by the comments or a clear consensus where the opposed comments did not address the reasons for the proposed rename. As you may have noticed I was not around for a while and I have less time for this. But I will try to get to those. But it may only be one a day, maybe more. If someone else wants to try I'd be grateful. I still need to clean up the Vegas categories. Finding other issues besides the ones from the recent moves. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I believed you jumped the gun and did not give me a chance to reply. Your move has rendered this category useless to me, so I will no longer use it. The reply I was preparing that you did not give me a chance to post:
Well, I am not sure what the intention or purpose of "maritime history by country" is, geographic, national, state, etc., nor do I want to impose my own views, or second-guess it or make it so precise that it makes nonsense of what certain categories have been trying to collect. Certainly seems to be a sparse category - most major contributors to maritime history are missing here (Carthaginians, Arabs, Chinese, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, etc.) And I wouldn't be surprised if the poor choice of category title ("Maritime history of country x") is a contributory factor to that sparseness, as delineating the boundaries of maritime history by country is much more difficult than "land history" (which has more compact and firmer geographic boundaries). Countries are a piece of land, defined by legal jurisdiction, but navigation is much more fluid, the sea belongs to no one. So setting the boundaries of where one country's maritime history begins, and another country's maritime history ends, is fraught with difficulty. The "of X" makes an already difficult situation even more difficult, because "of X" also implies a specific geographic location, and brings in a secondary meaning (i.e. the history of a geographical area) which tramples on national turfs. The adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", "Dutch" is less ambiguous, much more flexible and less likely to be quarreled over. Again, I point out the problems and ambiguities that would be created by renaming "Italian explorers" as "Explorers of Italy", or renaming "Soviet space exploration" as "Space exploration of the Soviet Union".
Whomever came up with this "maritime history of X" convention (and it is not much of a convention, as it seems pretty recent and pretty limited to very few countries), apparently did not think this through. I suspect they went with a simplistic analogy, assuming that maritime history is a subset of the history of a country. But it is not so. Maritime history is the history of the sea - or more precisely, seafaring, a technological endeavor, like space exploration. "Portuguese maritime history" means the contributions of the Portuguese to seafaring. "Maritime history of Portugal" brings up connotations of seafaring in Portuguese waters. Once that geographic connotation comes in - which is not the intention of these "of X" categories, but nonetheless arises by the way the category is worded - the problems begin. Cape Bojador is Moroccan territorial waters, and seafaring in those waters, even if undertaken by citizens of other nations, is part of the maritime history of Morocco. "Portuguese maritime history" cuts through the mess in a jiffy, without ambiguities or treading on toes.
"Of X" can also indicates the modern state, which brings up massive problems with states that no longer exist. Just playing with cartography, I've seen the headache of categorizing contributions as "of Aragon" or "of Spain", or so many aspects of Venetian navigation, which could be put under "Italian", but not "of Italy". And then there are the multitude of seafarers under foreign flags - Alvise Cadamosto, John Cabot, Ferdinand Magellan, etc. - where flexibility is needed. "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", "Dutch", are nationalities rather than states, thereby simplifying matters enormously.
Categories should say what they mean. And I meant this category to mean the Portuguese contributions to maritime history, which is expansive, and not the history of seafaring in Portugal, which is much narrower.
To those who suggest narrowness has its virtue, or that I shouldn't be putting so many things in this category if they are not narrowly "of Portugal", I disagree. Everything in this category is intimately related to Portuguese maritime history. I constructed this category for a purpose - to collect the articles relevant to Portuguese maritime history. Not those relevant to Portugal or the government or Portugal, or its discoveries or territories or empire. But those relevant to maritime history. These articles were hitherto partitioned into a myriad of scattered, disconnected categories, often misclassified in an attempt to put them together with others (e.g. cartographers and financiers classified as "explorers", etc.) If someone hopes to get a grip or understanding of Portuguese contribution to maritime history, he need not look through a gazillion different scattered categories for associated topics, but can come here. It is useful to have it all in one place.
That was my intent. I didn't have any interest in subsuming it as part of the history of a country, but rather as as part of the history of seafaring. Much as the "Soviet space program" is primarily part of the history of space exploration, rather than the history of the Soviet Union. The "Portuguese maritime history" label was carefully chosen as the one which I could easiest default to, one that could be threaded through all these articles and hold them together, with the least complications or challenges. But I didn't anticipate the category itself would be challenged.
I don't want to see this category amputated to fit in the procrustean bed of a confusing and poorly-thought "convention", I want to be able to continue writing articles on Portuguese maritime history trusting there is a category in which I know it will fit, with articles I know are related, and not have to rack my brains in indecision of how or where to classify it and go back to dismembering the topic, scattering articles across a myriad of categories. If inconsistency in category titles is impossible to tolerate, then
Please consider this.
P.S. - (added now) Is this even procedurally correct? I haven't been in category discussions before, but controversial RMs have at least a seven days of open discussion. I know this was classified for "speedy", but IIRC correctly, if it was opposed (and I opposed it) then it is taken off the speedy list and moves to some sort of longer discussion. Or am I mistaken here? Walrasiad ( talk) 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeking to badger anyone, but to obtain straight answers. I was shocked and surprised to find a speedy move undertaken when I had expected there to be a longer time for discussion. I suspected there was a procedural mistake, but not having sufficient experience on how speedy moves in categories work, I came here to inquire about the procedure and the criteria used to close this. I can't say I was given straight answers, but found contradictions, evasiveness and attempts to palm me off to another forum, or baiting me to initiate procedures frankly seem dubious and pointy to me. That is not a good start. My last encounter with a premature move turned out to be a very unhappy, even hellish, experience to all involved. I learned then it was wise to have clear and straight answers from the admin from the outset, to avoid having his initial judgment brought up again to scrutiny and questioned repeatedly later in the process. I want to ensure that does not happen again, and that whatever subsequent course of action follows will be smooth and without damage. At this stage, my intention is to avoid submitting an ANI and getting other admins involved, but rather to try to work with Mike to clarify this move, so we can set this aside, and help sort the options available to me to try to retrieve the situation.
@ Mike, I know the job of an admin is thankless and trying, and I thank you for your patience thus far. I hope you understand that I am not upset at the move (well, I am, but that's not why I am here). I am here because I was taken aback and remain baffled at the prematurity and short-circuiting of what I thought the process was. And I would like that clarified sincerely. Walrasiad ( talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
And that is why I don't intend to apply for your job. For I might have to deal with people like me, who are tenacious in seeking satisfaction and can't be chased away with a broom. I am not asking you for advice - not at this point, anyway. I am asking you for a satisfactory explanation. For all your replies, I am simply not able to shake off the perception that you simply disregarded procedure in this matter. Of course, I don't want to accuse without first being clear about what the procedure was, and what your explanation is. I had hoped it would be satisfactory. But as far as I can gather from your replies, your explanation is at variance with the procedure, which implies you made a mistake. Which is forgiveable. But not owning up to it, and hoping I'll just slink away is something else. I don't mind losing a case fair and square. But I do mind being cheated. I am hoping here that you can prove that I wasn't. Walrasiad ( talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Per my comments at CfD, I think that Mike acted wrongly in proceeding with the move in the face of an objection. This was a speedy process, in which any sustained objection is supposed to trigger a full discussion, so WP:SNOW was inapplicable; SNOW relates to a full discussion, and this was not a discussion.
That said, Mike has now acted quite properly in reversing the speedy rename, and listing the category at CFD under the status quo ante. I hope that Walrasiad no longer feels cheated, and can accept that even a conscientious admin like Mike will err occasionally. What matters is that Mike has now remedied that error.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Mike. I know this hasn't been a picnic for you. I much appreciate the opportunity to resume full discussion. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place on my talk page as to where we should draw a limit on what "old fooian categories we keep and which we convert to people educatated at foo school. You may like to participate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd " Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker ( talk) 13:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've commented there and would like to ask your thoughts on it there. Thanks : ) - jc37 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Mike, I just spotted your comment here that you "intend to begin an "alumni"/"Alumni of" discussion once we've dealt with all the "Old (X)" categories to whatever extent we're going to deal with those".
Good idea. The Old Fooian cleanup has helped co-ordinate these categories, but we still have too many national formats: Foo alumni, alumni of Foo, PEA, and maybe a few remaining "Former pupils". More consistency would be great.
If all the current CfDs are passed, the remaining Old Fooians will be about 25 in the UK, plus a few in Pakistan and South Africa. Maybe 35 in total. I'll wait and see what happens to the current batch of nominations before deciding which Old Fooians (if any) I nominate next ... but I have been surprised to see some noms open for so long. There are currently 11 noms eligible for closure, going back to the Doscos on March 2. I hope someone closes them soon, because it's not healthy for discussions to re`main open so long. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I try be to a wise administrator, not always succeeding. Since there was the accusation of bias in my closes by Cjc13, I decided that it would be best to step back for a while and let someone else from the outside deal with those closes. I do believe that all of the ones I did were correct based on the facts of the discussion. Also, the fact that none of these were taken to deletion review indicates that either no one wants to do that, or that the closes would be upheld there since the actions were based on consensus. So rather then create issues, I felt it was best to back off for a while and let someone else deal with these. I suppose that if those new closes are for a rename, which is what I believe the consensus is (with one possible exception that I have not read closely), I may again resume closing them so that they don't backup. So for now, we will need to wait. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Alternative future, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffy the Vampire Slayer ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you doing? There was no consensus on that category discussion, and you just flagrantly ignored the decent part of that discussion. You didn't even read the discussion. If you had, you would have noticed there were a number of editors that explicitly said not to do what you've done. -- RichardMcCoy ( talk) 17:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Too funny. What you're accusing me of is exactly what you've just done.-- RichardMcCoy( talk) 17:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Mike, you're really being crazy here and insulting. You think you've done what you've said, but you've not. Here's a simple example, you've deleted the category for conservation-restoration from Save Outdoor Sculpture and put Art conservation and restoration. Save Outdoor Sculpture is not strictly about art. Read the discussions and please consider others opinions. Undo what you're doing. You're not following it at all!-- RichardMcCoy ( talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you're just having a bad day, Mike Selinker. Here's hoping you cool off and think about what you're doing.-- RichardMcCoy ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're just going to make it into a bigger mess and then walk away? -- RichardMcCoy ( talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Mike, it wasn't that I "felt insulted," it's that you typed insults.-- RichardMcCoy ( talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Ever since Portuguese maritime history came to its whimpering end, I have suspected you are actually a glutton for punishment or some sort of masochist. Now I know you are. So have a cheeseburger, you glutton. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC) |
This was originally formed several years ago when setting up and standardising the university categories and a division opened up (and was generally maintained by CFD) between countries on this, mainly with the British, Irish, Sri Lankan and Hong Kong categories going one way and most other countries going the other. Part of the divide may be different preferences for title order between countries but a particular problem is that "Institution Name alumni" can produce awkward sounding results when the institution name is punctuated, especially when it's part of a larger institution. There are quite a number of such cases in the UK, particularly Oxbridge colleges where the name is "Foo College, Oxbridge", and also some of the University of London colleges where the current branding is "Foo, University of London". Ireland has similar cases such as "Trinity College, Dublin". (Sri Lanka and Hong Kong don't appear to have these forms so I'm not sure why precisely the categories went the way it did when other Commonwealth countries didn't.) As these were amongst the earliest with categories the form was naturally copied by others.
At a random glance of other English speaking countries with lots of such categories, Canada, Israel, New Zeland, Pakistan and South Africa don't have any such institution names to cope with, whilst Australia only has a couple. The US categories are harder to glance browse (although I remember you once produced a monster of a multi-hyphenated name). Indiahas several within the collegiate Universities of Bangalore, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras and Mumbai. Without looking too indepth, it's my impression that such problematic institution names are also rare in at least the English names for many other countries' universities.
Any general discussion in this area will need to take in the universities as well but it will need to give explicit thought to institutions with such names that don't easily fit. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Categorisation Barnstar | |
For the all-around work you do and have done related to categories. Your work over the last several years has clearly helped better organise what was at one time quite a mess, greatly clarifying and uniting the structure, thereby enhancing navigation for our readers. An altogether thankless task which should not continue to be so. So from me (at least) - Thank you : )- jc37 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Your opinion is requested here, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country, for a discussion that is similar to one you participated in last December. Thanks! -- Karl.brown( talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Occurs to me that since I mentioned you, I should drop you a note : ) - jc37 21:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories.
KarlB (
talk)
19:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
lol you faked me out by relisting in parts. The edit conflict I got when typing my restatement, was a surprise : )
(A quick re-edit and pasted anyway : ) - jc37 02:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been much active there recently, so I'm a bit rusty on the process. but to give you some info: User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick was recently blocked by User:Elen of the Roads. And (mostly) unrelated to that, I struck my comments due to some comments on my talk page. So at this point I don't know what the status of those speedy noms should be. - jc37 03:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to
respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you.
When was
WP:ENGVAR withdrawn as a policy? That was a really bad decision 8-(
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I dislike elitism inherently. To clim that Eton should have a special exemption strikes me as wrong, and to give the special exemption to Eton in a country of less than 60 million and to deney it to the premier school of a country with over twice that number of people is to base categorizing on unjustifiable criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of commercial failures in software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial failures in software until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike
I see that the South African Old Boys CfD has closed as rename to existing "alumni of Foo" convention.
You had suggested renaming them all to "People educated at", but I wondered why stop at S. Africa? It seems to me to be odd to apply American terminology to former British colonies, so I wonder why not switch to the neutral PEA format for all the Commonwealth countries? I see Category:Alumni by secondary school in Zimbabwe, Category:Alumni by secondary school in India, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Nigeria, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Kenya, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Pakistan, and Category:Alumni by secondary school in Malawi as being doable in one big nomination.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Works about race, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. KarlB ( talk) 19:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way to rename a category so that the history is preserved? otherwise it seems that you lose the history of who edited the category/how it changed over time, once it is renamed (a similar thing doesn't happen with articles). Thanks! -- KarlB ( talk) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The line over it opened to public traffic in 1852
Brunel died in 1859
Why do you claim it was built in 1860?
This Is... is a low-budget local newspaper that I wouldn't trust to give the right details for a village fete. I'm organising a festival in South Wales - they didn't!
So is this either not used by the original line (somehow), a replacement viaduct (possible, but unmentioned), the line date is wrong, or else the bridge is older than 1860. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, is there anything else I can do to clarify Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30#Category:Categories by time period? I seem to have put everyone off! – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, thanks for picking up some of the consequent cleanup for categories "by era". You probably already know about the optional parameter in {{ Cfm}} for the section name in group nominations, but I thought I'd drop a friendly reminder as some recent noms have missed it (e.g. [2]) -- perhaps TW doesn't handle it? – FayenaticLondon (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state.-- Orlady ( talk) 22:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation.
KarlB (
talk)
04:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
As you were one of the co-noms for me for adminship, I thought it only polite that I should drop you a note about this.- jc37 09:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
A few minutes ago, I deleted about 20–30 empty 'bridges-by-decade' categories that were listed at WP:CFD/W. In light of the April discussion, what should happen to the remainder of Category:Bridges by decade? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, please see WT:Categories for discussion#Category:Bridges by century. I started commenting before I realised that it was your work. Perhaps there is a good explanation... ah, I see there was a CFD in April. Ah well, I'll leave you to speak for yourself. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Your thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Boats by designer, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion,merging, or renaming. 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. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 00:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.
I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)
I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.
I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.
I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.
So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.
This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )
(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that -as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Wikipedia.)
I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.
Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Bachman & Cummings albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion,merging, or renaming. 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. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some wacky diffs in the past, but this one left me confused. They're the exact same spelling? What did I miss? - jc37 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Should Category:Lethbridge Suger Kings alumni really renamed to Category:Lethbridge Sugar Kings? And Category:Granby Bisons alumni to Category:Granby Bisons? (The former is now at WP:CFD/W) [4] Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever your knowledge of the background, might be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 2#Category redirects. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Category:Songs about trucks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 28 - thank you. Does the rename also include the other categories mentioned in the discussion, such as Category:English presbyterians of the Rebellion period? There seemed to be consensus concerning those as well. St Anselm ( talk) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
JonFlaune has asked for a deletion review of Category:Islamophobia. 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. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, you have just closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_21#Category:Songs_about_poverty Songs about poverty as no consensus. Do you want to reconsider before I appeal against your decision?-- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited List of English List A limited-overs cricketers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Russell( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 04:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw your reversion on my "soundtrack" edit. The album infobox only allows 12 words in the type field, one of which is "soundtrack." If you don't use one of those 12 words, the system puts the article into Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, where an editor like me will change it to one of those 12 words. So if not "soundtrack," which of those words do you think applies to an original cast recording? Soundtrack seems the closest to me.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You called, and we came running. Is there a bot that can apply this to cast albums in the musical theatre category tree? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Category:MetroStars, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, may I recommend you to check for backlinks when deleting categories? e.g. Category:Surname clarification templates was linked from a template documentation page. Please excuse me if you do check but simply overlooked that one. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
See this one as it involves your name. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Actresses. 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Immortality in fiction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bloodshot and Captain Scarlet( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Bobmouldsilverage-e13389992789021-300x300.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.-- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 17:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. You closed CfD about Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season a couple of months ago, and you said "The split has merit to the commenters, so if someone is inclined to do so, go ahead." I forgot all about the CfD, and now that it was brought to my attention through my watchlist, I thought it was time to split the category, but I were wondered what would be the way forward when performing such a split. Is it the right way to create the new categories ( Category:UEFA Champions League clubs 2012–13 season and Category:UEFA Europa League clubs 2012–13 season, and recategorise the articles and then leave the Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season empty?-- Mentoz86 ( talk) 22:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Crescent City Blues at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Sasata (
talk)
08:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 6 October 2012, Did you know?was updated with a fact from the article Crescent City Blues, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Johnny Cash took most of the lyrics of " Folsom Prison Blues" from Gordon Jenkins' song " Crescent City Blues"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crescent City Blues.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Starship albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Alice Academy characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this CfD at long last. Although you closed as "rename to ...people", you actually entered a rename to "...presenters" on the Working page. ( [5]) I'll remedy this by adding the People cats as head categories, and looking for any non-presenters; the end result will be less work than sub-catting as you had suggested. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This CFD had become such a massive wall of text that I wondered whether anyone would ever close it. Rumours persist of several admins having lost the will to live after trying to read it all, so I reckoned it would probably languish for years.
I looked for a suitable barnstar, but I could find nothing which was designed to acknowledge a herculean labour. So the best I can do is to offer plaintext congratulations on closing it, and having apparently survived the ordeal.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey there. Now that all of these Vancouver Whitecaps categories have been merged, I just want to confirm with you that it is ok to go ahead and recreate Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players to house Vancouver Whitecaps FCplayers. We now have Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players which houses Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players, and Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–1984) players, which houses Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–1984) players. Because I will be recreating a category with similar content to what pre-existed, I just wanted to get the green light from the closing admin, as required. Also, one category was missied during the merge. Category:Vancouver 86ers (USL A-League) players should be merged to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players. Can you handle this here, or do I have to go through the whole CfD process for that? – Nurmsook! talk... 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You recently closed the CFD discussion on the above topic (link for reference. One quick question that wasn't made clear in your closing. There was also a proposal in the same discussion on renaming Category:Gaelic football competitions in County Londonderry to Category:Gaelic football competitions in County Derry, can that proposal be clarified in the close? Be aware thought that that proposal answer may be complicated by the fact that the original author behind the proposal created the second category before awaiting a decision and is subject to a separate CFD here. Looks like there was some cross over of proposals among the different discussions and I didn't spot it in the original one when I nominated that newly created category for deletion. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 00:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Selinker, If you are not fully occupied with your other many tasks that keep you busy, would you mind please commenting on my request at WP:PERM/A? It would mean more either way coming from you. Thank you mate. Cheers! T.I.M( Contact) 02:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I hate to keep bugging you, but I think I'm doing a terrible job communicating. I am looking for an administrator to fulfill that request by Doneing or
Not doneing it, and assigning the userright if it it checks out with them. Is that still OK with you?
Hi Mike. You closed the CfD on Navajo Nation stubs as no consensus, which seemed fair enough for the category. However, there seemed to me to be agreement as part of this discussion to rename the template {{ Navnat-stub}} to {{ Navajo-stub}}. Would it be okay to go ahead with this rename (leaving redirect)? Or should I reopen a seperate discussion? -- Qetuth( talk) 08:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike
Please may I ask you to review your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 19#Category:Kuwaiti_actresses. I have two concerns with it:
Since you closed as "merge (already done)", I'm a little puzzled why you didn't investigate how it came to be "already done". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. The Old Jacobite The '45 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of television series that changed networks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Showtime( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice one there. I thought about suggesting that today when looking over open discussions and came back upon this one. - jc37 01:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Mike, I am considering posting a deletion review for the political prisoner-related categories, but would like to discuss with you first.
In the September 12 discussion, the votes to keep these categories outnumbered the delete/merge votes by a ratio or 2 to 1, so I assumed that you would have some exceptional rationale for merging. However, when explaining your decision, you cited only the example of Pussy Riot to illustrate that there were NPOV concerns around who should populate the category of political prisoners in Russia. Other examples of American, Israeli, and Irish prisoners were offered in the discussion to further illustrate that the classification of political prisoner is sometimes controversial (all these countries are democracies; no one could provide evidence of controversial classifications in China, North Korea or the USSR). However, the purpose of a CfD debate is to discuss the category, not the people within it. These are two separate issues, and the question of which individuals should populate a category should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is my position that, if reliable sources are in strong agreement that a given country has political prisoners, then a category should exist to identify them.
Moreover, I find it troubling that all categories for political prisoners were deleted simply because people couldn't agree on whether the label should be extended Pussy Riot. There is no connection between Pussy Riot and the political prisoners in China or the former Soviet Union. Whereas sources may disagree on whether Pussy Riot's members are political prisoners, there is resounding agreement in the highest quality reliable sources that the category of political prisoners does exist in China (and elsewhere). I'm wondering if you could explain why you believe that the controversy around a handful of individual cases should result in the deletion of every single category related to political prisoners.
In your decision, you wrote that the Pussy Riot example is proof that "the number of times we'll agree on classification will be less than the times we can." I don't believe the evidence supports this conclusion. Maybe that's true of prisoners in democracies, but not of authoritarian government. Whereas there is disagreement around Pussy Riot, there is no such disagreement around a single one of the 16 people currently listed in Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China. You also suggested that we could adopt an approach where a third-party organization (like Amnesty International) issues the classification of political prisoners for us. But that's already what we're doing—every person named in the category for Chinese political prisoners is described as such in reliable sources, and I cannot find a single reliable source that debates that classification for even one of them. There are databases from reputable research organizations listing tens of thousands of Chinese political prisoners. So, there are plenty of sources that can be used to make this classification for us. Would this knowledge impact your decision? If not, could you elaborate on your rationale? Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 23:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius( have a chat) 03:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You usually turn me down when I ask you about these things, but I thought I would at least ask again : )
Any chance you might be interested this year? It looks like several arbcom members won't be running again, and so far not many seem to be running.
You are obviously well respected by most who have interacted with you. Any possibility? - jc37 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
On a different note, I've nominated you for some free merchandise. I hope you win : ) - jc37 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(I will notify BrownHairedGirl ( talk · contribs) of the discussion here.)
I think that BrownHairGirl inadvertently proposed (and I'll explain why below) Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China for merging to Category:People executed by China. The reason is simple: while it is true that People's Republic of China has been moved/merged with China, the problem is that right now, Category:People executed by China category refers to all executions throughout Chinese history. (See the other subcategories -- e.g., Category:People executed by the Han Dynasty and Category:People executed by the Tang Dynasty.) Executions by the People's Republic of China therefore should specifically remain as a subcategory thereof as a historical differentiation. If there is a relatively easy way to undo the merge, I would hope that it would be undone. -- Nlu ( talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I have started a CfD discussion about the subcategories of Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country). Currently some of them use the "(country)" disambiguator (such as Category:Georgia (country)–Israel relations) but some of them don't (such as Category:Georgia–Poland relations). I hope the debate can lead to some standardization one way or the other and since you created one of these subcategories, I'm hoping you can chime in. Cheers, Pichpich( talk) 20:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for writing closing comments on the Welsh case. Had you done the same for the Irish case, this nomination might not have been necessary. Anyway, you wrote, "But a look at the articles shows that Welsh Government most assuredly does not equal Government of Wales, and similarly for Scotland.". That's all very well. But the same might also be written of the Irish case. Yet the decision in that case was upmerge. I'd be obliged if you would explain for me the differing rationale. Why is one a keep and the other an upmerge? The devolved administratin argument is pure hokum and you know it. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok I saw there were several stub cat CfDs still open that you just took care of.
I didn't close them previously because (honestly) I couldn't remember how they worked, so I just passed them over : )
So if they are nommed, do we delete both the cat and then the template? Or do we just disable the cat from the template?
My vague recollection is that they are not dissimilar to userboxes populating user cats.
Am I remembering correctly? If not, please edumacate me : ) - jc37 09:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, re [6] I thought you might appreciate a reminder of WT:CFDW#Speedy processing issue: remember the hyphen issue, please!
I also left a question there which perhaps no-one has noticed. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Atmosphere video albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
If possible could you shoot me an email either through the wiki or at jalexanderwikimedia.org. Nothing bad :)
Jalexander--
WMF
00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Can you add your comments to Wikipedia:Help_desk#Deletion_review ? Thanks GrahamHardy( talk) 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on Wikipedia better! In November 97 people made a total of 899 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the
WikiProject Mixed martial arts
Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the
talk page. Kevlar( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
You speedily deleted Category:Essayist navigational boxes for being empty. If I understand WP:CSD#C1 correctly, the category should have been empty for four days for that criterion to apply, but I had created it earlier today via Articles for creation. I have thus recreated it; it will probably be filled within a day or two. Huon ( talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I note that you've been closing out several CfDs that move [...Template] to [...Navigation boxes] (e.g. [7]) However, if I understand this right they are still abbreviated with a "T" in category lists? (e.g. [8] ) So for consistency should this tabulation be changed to an "N"? And I note they are still called 'templates', e.g. Category:English writer navigational boxes. (It strikes me that there are a lot of wide-reaching CfD changes being proposed in a piece-meal manner at the moment, which must be placing a challenge on the quality of reviewing and on the admins to keep up.) Ephebi( talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you closed this discussionas merge to Category:People from Gibraltar today. However, I closed this discussion, started after that one, yesterday that (reverse) merged PfG to Category:Gibraltarian people. So I've modified the result of PawG to target Gp. FYI! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi; regarding this close, in which Category:Tiwi Islander people was created—would you consider changing it to Category:Tiwi Islands people? For all other categories, we've had discussions in the past where we've concluded that although "XXX Islander" is a legitimate noun, it's not such a good adjective, so we've always defaulted to "XXX Islands people"— Category:Solomon Islands people, Category:British Virgin Islands people, for examples. Alternatively, I could start a new CFD to have the category renamed, but I thought I would ask first in case you were in agreement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)