Hi, I read your recent posts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 29 and agreed with the basic thrust of your statements. I am trying to argue for the retention of Category:Duke Ellington, currently on the chopping block over here. Is there any advice on seeking an exception from the general purge that seems to be under way (like that which was apparently made for Category:White Zombie)? I have made several posts to the relevant discussion and am not sure if my arguments are getting any traction. Thanks for any help you can give. InnocuousPseudonym04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37(T)13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jazz albums
This is rich Mike. After all the discussions on how to accomplish categorizing albums by genre, you nominate all such albums for merger. What ends are you even working towards? Comprehensive coverage obviously is not one of them. Quit taking everything so personal, stalking me, and take criticism like a man Mike. You act like a baby. (Mind meal16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello. I see you have removed the categories from the redirects of two famous P. G. Wodehouse locations, Market Blandings (diff) and Market Snodsbury (diff). I'd like to know your rationales for doing this.
Indeed, redirects are routinely categorized when needed, and appear for this reason in italic in the category lists; some redirects are even created with the express purpose of being categorized with something the target page can't be. The wiki software was specially updated to allow redirects to be categorized. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories_for_redirect_pages
The same applies to your de-categorizing Middle-earth redirects. Currently there's a perfect and useful system of categorical index for M-e topics (under construction in some parts), to be used instead of 'List of smth'. I reinstall for now M-e categories, but not "Fictional lakes" etc. Súrendil10:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds OK to me. If you have a scheme which you're all following for the Middle-earth categories, by all means follow it. I don't think it makes sense to do so for the more general "Fictional (X)" categories, though, because if every "Geography of (X)" article had all of its rivers in "Fictional rivers," that category would be almost entrely redirects.--Mike Selinker13:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to reply briefly to the admin comment you made on the cfd for Category:California porn stars. You mentioned that "The result of the debate was no consensus. Parallelism suggests the "porn stars" hierarchy should mirror the "actors" hierarchy, though this will be an outlier until it does so. So the creators of this category may wish to build out the categories for other states if they want to see this category survive a second CfD debate."
I wanted to clear up two things in regards to the parrallelism comment. First, I would probably recommend that a good compromise, if this were renominated, is that California porn stars be upmerged into Category:California actors. (Part of my problem with the original cfd nomination was that it wanted to upmerge into Category:American actors, which isn't the correct upmerge.) The reason I say that is that Category:California people by occupation will probably work best if it is kept to top level categories similar to Category:People by occupation. In fact, I'd almost suggest creating Category:California entertainers and moving all the actors and musicians and other California entertainers into that.
Second, you appeared to be concerned about a lack of parralelism for porn star categories for other states. However note that a very large bulk of porn stars also happen to be under Category:People from California, so only a small handful of states would at all need a state category for porn stars. Also keep in mind that not all states have a People by Occupation subcategory, so until that is done it doesn't make sense to create a subcategory for that within those particular states. A big reason California has this subdivision by occupation structure is because of the huge size of Category:People from California.
So to sum up the reasons you see a lack of parrallelism here are 1) most states don't have porn star articles, and 2) most states don't have People by Occupation subcategories. California is an exception because of its size and its large number of porn stars, and the subcategory helps split them out from the other sorts of California actor articles (which California also has a large number of). Therefore I wouldn't recommend deleting the category simply because it isn't reflected by other states with fewer actor biographies. Dugwiki15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (a) I know nothing about the geographic density of porn stars, or for that matter almost nothing about porn stars, and (b) I think the people by occupation by state subcategories are on pretty shaky ground to begin with. A category like this probably doesn't gain much support as an outlier, so if it doesn't gain some friends, a second go-round would probably result in a deletion. Just my read on things, though.--Mike Selinker20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, on a) you'll have to either take my word for it or examine the articles to verify my statement's validity. But having actually done a previous category cleanup on both actor and porn star articles I can say that my opinion is that the great majority of both are articles that fall under Category:People from California (which makes sense since so much media in both mainstream and adult industries is produced in that state). As to b), the question of dividing state biographies by occupation is a separate question, and one I recommended discussing within WP:California. I'm just going by categorization scheme for that state that's been in place for over a year. If editorial consensus is to change that scheme, then that's something that would have to be discussed in a broader thread. Also on b), I do agree that I could support merging the California porn star subcategory to the California actor category. What I didn't agree to was taking those articles completely out of Category:California people by occupation, which merging to Category:American porn stars would do. Taking them out entirely defeats the purpose of making the by-occupation scheme a theoretically complete subdivision. Dugwiki14:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. I'm just telling you the way I would go if in three months this category came up again. Someone else may close it in that circumstance, though.--Mike Selinker15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. As to the broader overall question, I did post a thread recently at WP:California asking for their feedback on Category:California people by occupation but I haven't had any replies one way or another yet. I figured that Wiki project would be the one most interested in how the California bios are organized, so I'm kind of surprised nobody commented yet. Anyway, I'm still in the process of a general category cleanup on Category:People from California (there's a lot of articles to review, so it's taking a while), so if that works out well then I'll probably ask some of the other state projects or the Biography project to see if other large states are interested in doing something similar. Doing it all from scratch for a state is a big undertaking, so I'm obviously not keen on starting it unless the people who actually use those articles frequently think it would be worthwhile. Dugwiki16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comic book terrorists
Your position on this cat doesn't sound like you at all. I'd have though you'd be making Alex's point to others. Well, it's not the first time you've surprised me [1] ;) ×Meegs14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a note about the removal of your edit on the talk page. It was actually discussed and while I do agree with you on a personal level; there is a general consensus to deal with. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do too, usually, and especially when there isn't a grandparent that could fill the same role. I don't like the deletion of eponymous band cats, for example, because it leaves no short path between the songs and albums and members cats (aside from typing-in the url). Most of these cats, though, contain only alumni and faculty subcats (under varying names), and maybe a presidents cat that could easily be tucked into faculty. If we did get rid of the people hierarchy, the alumni and faculty cats would still be right next to each other in Category:Dartmouth College. If you look, you'll see that most schools, at least in the U.S., don't have this cat, so it's kind of the norm now anyway. The inconsistency bothers me as much as the unnecessary layer. In any case, I'm happy to not pursue this. ×Meegs00:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sleep on this for a few weeks. Bookmark that root category. If I act, I'll probably start with a discussion advertised to or from there. Thanks for the sounding board ×Meegs01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, while I appreciate your efforts in getting CfDs to closure, unfortunately by closing out the current CfD you appear to have ignored all of the previous discussion and taken a completely new position after a very clear consensus had developed using Category:Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates, which the original proposer supported.
I am loath to tell you how to use WP, as I suspect you have far more barnstars than I could ever hope for 8-), but if you are unhappy with the category name then surely you should have contributed to the CfD or should implement the consensus while opening a new CfD yourself. From my position the name you have unilaterally chosen doesn't actually appear any better than the previous choice, being non globalized and ambiguous, and offers a potential soapbox for any one with a political axe to grind anywhere in the world. Ephebi16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response, Speedy Gonzales! I've not done a DRV before, nor am I going to be online for much time over the next two weeks. However I'll try to kick it off but probably will not have much time to see it through. Ephebi16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this article as part of a general cleanup. We had previously discussed a name change for that article that would go in a different direction. Since the article covers economic, cultural, and philosophical theiories as well as politicial views I'd proposed naming it simply "Views of Lyndon LaRouche", to which there was no objection. I'd been meaning to make the move but when you moved it I figured I'd better make the change that had already been discussed. I realize that this will introduce an odd entry in Category:Political positions of politicians, but nothing is ever perfect in this complicated world. ·:· Will Beback·:·19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles in the set (except the Buchanan one) are all patterned on the same format, so this one's a bit of an outlier anyway. I think the options are too either bring its format into line with the others, or give it a different name like you suggest. Whatever works.--Mike Selinker22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple parts of Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects. The ones I've been deleting are not part of categories just for redirects, not alternate names for articles, and so on. They're just names of minor characters which don't have, and do not appear to be intended to have, articles written about them. As such they're just among the many hundreds of characters who are fictional whatevers that don't have articles. Not every player on the Red Sox has an article, and we don't have Category:Boston Red Sox players filled up with the names of people we're not writing about. So too with these. However, in some cases we're trying to complete an encyclopedic list of some things (see the Categorization of list entries section), and in those cases it makes sense to have redirects fill up a category that's bounded. But not when the category's unbounded.--Mike Selinker14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds great. I was just about to post something saying we should pick one or the other. Keeping the Vertebrates > Mammals heirarchy makes sense.--Mike Selinker15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, but the nom goofed slightly. It appears that the CfD was supposed to be for Category:Fictional characters who can fly and some of its subs, including the Pokemon.
You may want to comment on the whole CfD as well as just the one sub.
Please read the CfD results more closely. The category was renamed (absurdly, in my opinion), not abolished. You keep deleting the new, renamed category from the article about the company itself. --Orange Mike02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey yourself. There seem to be two tasks at UCFD lately: try to stop people from deleting everything, and prune around the edges of a system we put together works pretty well. I feel confident that the former has an appropriate level of defense, and the latter's not too significant. So I've found other category-related things to attend to. But I check back in every now and then.--Mike Selinker07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to explain what my initial response to that was:
There is a moment in Flash When Max Mercury says to Wally: "You don't play fair", and Wally responds "No, I play for keeps." (Granted it was one of those "fate of the world in the balance" moments...)
Upon reflection I'm also thinking of the moment in Sabrina in which Linus is told that the reason that David gave for not going to the office was because he didn't feel he had to.. Linus was there. - jc3709:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL - "This user is taking a Wikibreak into the Speed Force, and as such, may not respond to inquiries at any time in the foreseeable future" - Tooo funny : ) - jc3716:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have categories for people who like a project but don't participate actively. Were this to be kept, we would potentially double the number of WikiProject user categories. So this category is likely to be deleted on those grounds.--Mike Selinker11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully before replying. The category is for editors who help with minor tasks in the project not for just "liking" it. Please be so kind and respectfull of the work of others as to read carefully and evaluate before responding. There are two categories of participants, those who actively participate and those who choose to participate with minor tasks, the need to separate them is for knowing to whom to assign an specific task when needed. Please inform in detail, based on which WP Policy you want to either rename or delete the category, otherwise we need to review the legitimacy of the nomination. Daoken12:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I just disagree with it. In my opinion, hierarchical definitions of participation don't foster collaboration, they encourage division. But please feel free to disagree with me on the UCFD page.--Mike Selinker12:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to fail to understand the use of such division. It is for organizing the tasks assigned and not for qualifying. This kind of listing allows for tasks to be assigned to who can complete them and not randomly which is a waste of resources. That is organization 101 and has not even the most remote relation with what you are commenting. Anyway, for not wasting both our times in such a futile exercise I have created internal listings for the task and requested the deletion of the category as author and because it has become obsolete Daoken16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the WP:Keep It Simple with the help of two other editors. The category User KIS which you want to rename as participants, is not for participant, the project has no members as such. This category is for Wikipedians using the KIS (Keep It Simple Labels), it cannot be renamed to Participants or Members. Please review your nomination ℒibrarian211:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I created that category (not the project, that was Librarian2). The category indicates who uses those labels not membership.Heltzen◩11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, that will probably mean that people will vote to delete the category (not the userbox). I'll let people know. Thanks for the info.--Mike Selinker11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you closed this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. I hope you don't mind that I renominated the categories so soon after the initial closure: although it was without prejudice to renomination, less than 24 hours have passed. (Please let me know if you think the nomination is excessively premature, so that I may try to withdraw it.) However, there is some new information that was not mentioned in the initial discussion, this nomination includes both categories, and I have also requested assistance from two WikiProjects. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon(Talk)07:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I note that you decided at CFD:Fictional baseball teams not to upmerge Niners (Star Trek) on the grounds that the target was an article about an episode. However, the redirect itself is the name of a fictional sports team, so I have put it back in the head category. The article about the team had previously been merged into the episode, leaving the redirect.
For your info, I didn't create the category, and at the time that I added the redirect into the category, there were one or two other articles in it. As they have gone, I can't object to its deletion, although I wonder whether justifiable redirects might have been created when those articles were removed, which in turn might have justified the category!
Anyway, I hope that you accept my reasoning for upmerging, and that in future you will upmerge rather than delete when there is any useful case for doing so. Best regards, - Fayenatic(talk)18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the note, but I disagree. The redirect does not lead to a section about the baseball team, nor a description of the baseball team. It's only an element of the episode, and thus doesn't merit categorization.--Mike Selinker19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At one stage the target article had both, but following discussion these were transwikied to Memory Beta. The article does still have two external links for the team itself (including the transwiki) and mentions the team name prominently in the lead section, so I think the categorisation is still worthwhile. Happy to agree to disagree, - Fayenatic(talk)10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said your reason for not deleting this was because the previous cfd was not based on concensus. How did you get to this interpritation? Most users voted to delete the page, and most of the arguements made perfect sense for deletion. In addition, this time, most people voted to delete the page for valid reasons, and consensus seems to lead to the page being deleted; the only exception to the delete votes were pretty much people voting based on a certian bias they hold. This should have easily been a speedy deletion because this was deleted, so I am asking you why you keeped it and returned it to the original title that was deleted? YahelGuhan06:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahel, only a slim majority voted delete. Thus there is evidence of "no consensus". Please keep in mind that many of the delete votes were coming from anons that seemed to be single purpose accounts.Bless sins (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Bless sins said. It was a heated discussion, but good arguments were presented on both sides, and no argument held sway. So it should have been closed as no consensus. The Islamophobia debate had more consensus for changing the name, but still no consensus to eliminate the category entirely.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I think this close is not up to your usual standards. There were only three comments, all of which disagreed with the nomination, yet you closed it per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look at it. There's no opposition in the comments, only suggestions of what other people might think. The closest I see to an actual suggestion is your comment that the state concept should be retained. There's nothing in the corresponding categories for cities in towns, nor similar categories for U.S. states, that suggests this is a good idea. If you still believe I have erred, bring it to DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category system is going to be destroyed
...if we keep letting attacks on eponymous categories and categories containing "work by artist" stand. I'm not sure why we bother to categorise anything if we can't have a category tree like this:
Category:Categories named after musicians
Category:Band X
Category:Band X albums
Category:Band X songs
With, of course, the albums and songs categories being subcategories of Albums by Artist etc.
I tried to stop the dismantling of eponymously named categories, but three people (Kbdank, Otto, and CarlosSuarez) were enough to dismantle it. Still, I predict all these categories will be back within a year. Here's my suggestion: Find everyone who supports these so called eponymous categories and let's get them together in a group. Maybe we can reverse this tide.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I thought they were useful. But I wasn't closing discussions based upon my likes or dislikes. Since I'm not closing any more, add my name to the list if you wish, and I'll help out where I can. --Kbdank71 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't claiming a conspiracy or anything. I was pointing out that it only takes a couple dedicated people to effect change like that. Sorry if it came across any other way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but how about changing the name of the second tier to Category:Band X <something> - like "releases" (or works, or whatever). - jc3703:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of bands, it also needs to hold Category:Band X members, and any other article about the band. The debate is really over whether categories whose job it is to just box traditional subcategories should exist. Actually, now that I type that, that sounds like a mission statement of a Wikipedia thought school. Maybe we should start an anti-Deletionist school called "Categorists" and actually lay out the principles before trying to mount some sort of organized effort?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily call a Categorist anti-deletionist; people are always willing to create garbage categories. Regardless, having principles would be helpful. --Kbdank71 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I'd call a Categorist, as I'm just making this up as I go along. It seems common principles would be these: categories created according to rational and accepted schemes are almost always valuable; size of contents (above zero) is not a valid rationale for deleting a category in a rational scheme; categories exist to provide navigation in the category system, and are thus unrelated to templates; and categories must be held to rigid standards of syntax, but not so rigid that new categorization schemes can't be created. Those seem palatable. Anything else?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog
Since (I believe) you haven't been around lately, I chose you (lucky you) to request help for a minor backlog at WP:UCFD.
(And if anyone has the foolish audacity to call you a deletionist, please feel free to extend them a trout! - And if you don't, I may : )
Wow, that was quick (I'd forgotten about having 6-8 second spaced edit conflicts with you in the past on the working page : ) - jc3703:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Delete American pool players from the category of American Sportspeople?
Would you please be so kind as to provide your reasoning to delete American pool players from the American Sportspeople category?
Cuesports is a legitimate section on Wikipedia.
Pocket billiard players (pool players from America) are considered American sportspeople, in my most humble opinion. I look forward to your reply. Thanks in advance. RailbirdJAM (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding on My Discussion Page. I apologize if you did not understand my inquiry, and as such, I am, again, respectfully requesting for your kind reply to the above-referenced. I do not undersetand why American pool players cannot be included in the American Sportspeople category. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Thank you in advance! RailbirdJAM (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the source of the confusion here: Railbird is not referring to the category Category:American pool players, but to individual articles about American pool players, like Keith McCready[2].
Now that you've found the page on your own, I just wanted to mention to "someone" - It was an odd feeling to have only 2 DRVs on that page, and both were concerning closures that I had performed. (Of course, it eventually gained additional DRV noms.) I wonder if that's happened before. - jc3706:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the category deletion discussion you wrote: Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. That's activism for women's rights, in my opinion. - I'm curious as to what rights you see MW advocating in VRW. I, obviously, have my own reading of the text, but I would be interested to know yours. Thanks. Awadewit | talk12:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wollstonecraft argued for strength of reason to be divided more equally between the genders, rather than remain the (somewhat) exclusive province of men. Among the things this would require would be universal suffrage, educational opportunity for women, a sharing in economic decision making, and an overall abandonment of the principle that women are flighty and men are serious. Her most significant efforts were aimed at convincing women to want these opportunities, for it would do no good for men to hand them the opportunities if they would not grasp them. With us gender-equality types being mostly liberals and thus inclined to destroy our own heroes, a lot of energy gets wasted on attempting to prove what Wollstonecraft did not argue for, as if she had a blank canvas and could take whatever position she wanted. Wollstonecraft was trying to win. Thus, if she just said, "Give us everything you have in equal measure," as we might today, she might have not gained any support even from her own gender. I think our current (1970s+) western feminist movement is built on the principle that pretty much every thing Wollstonecraft argued for came true on the surface (voting rights, economic rights, educational rights), but our efforts need to focus now on ingraining those gains into everyday life and steering away threats (equal pay, bodily rights, enforcing domestic violence laws). That we can even fight on that ground is a testament to Wollstonecraft and others of the day succeeding in inspiring those who followed them, and a reminder that many non-Western nations have to start today where she did in the late 1700s. That's my take, anyway. Thanks for asking.--Mike Selinker14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wollstonecraft wanted women to be more rational - some of her harshest criticism in VRW is leveled against false sensibility. However, she only mentions suffrage once, while she mentions educational opportunities repeatedly. The text is part of a larger movement during the 1780s and 1790s to garner women a better education. I also don't think that it is at all clear that Wollstonecraft was advocating for the same education for men and women. She repeatedly paints a picture of the virtuous woman as the rational mother, the companionate wife. She acknowledges that men have physical valor and women do not. She appeals to men at the end of the book, saying women cannot save themselves.
I agree that Wollstonecraft did not have a blank canvas - she was drawing on a century of writers such as Mary Astell and Catharine Macaulay. She explicitly mentions Macaulay in the VRW several times. Macaulay was a heroine of hers - she sent her a copy of the Vindication of the Rights of Men. It is important, therefore, to look at Wollstonecraft's works in the context of these other works.
When you say Wollstonecraft was trying to "win", I'm not sure I agree - what was she trying to win exactly? That language sounds more activist and focused than I think MW was.
It is also particularly instructive to read books such as Hannah More's Strictures on Female Education. More is usually considered a conservative, but she argued for many of the same things as Wollstonecraft - better education for women, female civic duty in the home, etc. Mitzi Myers has an excellent article comparing the two. I don't think it is so easy to say that MW was liberal and More conservative. We use these labels now because they are simple, but I'm not sure they really apply to the eighteenth century. When you get into the nitty gritty of the history, they become just as problematic as feminist. :)
When I read it, I thought it was by a woman on fire. She used this semi-demure tone to warm her critics, but she was taking the entire system to task, and intended to change it (by words, anyway, if not by her own deeds). That may have been more what I wanted to read into the text than was there, but it's how I felt afterward.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I reverted to a previous green for compilation albums. We try not to use strident colors because those can be hazardous for people with certain health conditions (which is why the original bright orange was changed to a light blue). I suggest you to discuss at the WikiProject Albums page to change it, especially when not using a pastel-like color. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason I was unaware of, and I'm glad you changed it back. After fixing a few hundred album articles, I decided that the dark green was nearly unreadable the other direction, so I tried to experiment. Maybe someone can suggest a different color without these problems.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles without infoboxes categories
Hi there! I just noticed your edit here and wanted to comment. I took a look at the CfD and there doesn't look like there was very much discussion. If I had known about the CfD, I would have commented that I disagreed with each individual category renaming. For example, for WP:PLANTS, the template parameter used is "needs-taxobox". We have other articles that are without taxoboxes for a reason. The category is more correct as "needing a taxobox". I was thinking of taking this to deletion review; what do you think? Cheers, Rkitko(talk)21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the "taxobox" ones weren't specifically included in the nomination, and I was just expanding the nomination to include all categories of Category:Articles without infoboxes, you might want to do that. You could make the case that taxoboxes are needed and infoboxes aren't. I doubt that argument would get much traction, though; just because there wasn't much discussion doesn't mean there wasn't complete agreement. The argument on the forum was that no one should be determining whether an article needs a particular feature, but merely should be noting that it doesn't have one. I think that makes a lot of sense. Nonetheless, some people may object to me closing my own nomination, and expanding it beyond the categories nominated, so by all means bring it up if you like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your argument and agree to a certain extent. These categories are almost always associated with WikiProjects, correct? Therefore it seems appropriate to me that members of that WikiProject are able to declare, internally, which articles need infoboxes or not. That's my opinion. I'll think on it some more and let you know if I decide to bring it up. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up a supporting argument that if infoboxes are left as part of a WikiProject's domain, other editors are discouraged from adding infoboxes. So separating these categorical responsibilities from the WikiProjects also made sense to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the infoboxes themselves aren't the provenance of WikiProjects. The categories are, however, a WikiProject's way of determining what their articles need. They're also usually included in WikiProject templates. I doubt very much that other editors would be discouraged because the category title includes needs instead of without. In fact, I've observed IP editors within the WikiProject Plants arena adding taxoboxes and photos because the link on the talk page led them to instructions on how to do it. They pay very little attention to the categories on the talk pages. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you were not kind enough to inform anyone related to WP:HOCKEY of your CfD from December 6, I am still letting you know that I have relisted one of the categories to be renamed back to its proper name. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Alberta_Junior_Hockey_League_players. Please be aware that junior hockey is not the same as minor league hockey, so the argument of standardizing all "minor leagues" was deeply flawed, an flies in the face of what the targeted leagues themselves call their graduates. We should not be enforcing our own POV above what the leagues themselves call their former players. Feel free to comment, and if you decide to go after the team alumni categories, I hope you will be kind enough to drop a note at WT:HOCKEY next time. Regards, Resolute01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:F-Zero characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:F-Zero characters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:F-Zero characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
