User talk:Kbdank71

Please place new items at the bottom, thanks!

I searched the results for "Memphis rappers" in which the reason for deletion was that there were no other catagoires for rappers and cities. The reason it is important to have this catogory is that Memphis rap is different than all other rap. It has a certain style like no other. The rappers in Memphis are for the most part unknown to the world, yet stars and household names in the city of Memphis. True rap fans know this fact, and are intrigued to research and see what Memphis rappers are out there because their music is on the internet, yet very hard to find. I would really wish the deletion would be reconsidered, becuase "memphis rap" is a STYLE OF RAP. Not just a location of rap artists. Artist know worldwide are Three six mafia(dj paul& juicy j), eightball, lil whyte, yo gotti, playa fly, project pat, gangsta boo, cruncy black, lord infamous, lil bossie, and many, many others. The reason people want a "memphis rappers" catagory is because "Memphis rap" IS a rap stlye, and a rap catagory- it does not refer to geographical loaction, as much as it does to style. Thank you for your time!

Another category move

Hello. Yesterday, you moved all the articles out of Category:Canoers into Category:Canoeists per a CfD discussion, then deleted the former. The latter category already existed -- as a {{category redirect}} to Category:Canoers. Thus, when you deleted the old category, you eliminated whatever descriptive content it contained, and you left behind a redirect to a non-existent category. I've asked you this before -- PLEASE check before carrying out category moves and deletions to see if the destination category contains a {{category redirect}} or equivalent template. --Russ (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Settle down, Russ. Nothing is ever done around here that can't be fixed. --Kbdank71 14:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm settled down, thanks.  ;-) I'd be most pleased if you'd fix this. Also, the same thing happened on 24 December when moving Category:Lebanese television to Category:Television in Lebanon. --Russ (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Both have been fixed. --Kbdank71 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

West Paterson, New Jersey (or is it Woodland Park?)

Thanks for adding the source for the West Paterson, New Jersey name change. I had seen an article in the newspaper today and realized that I hadn't made the change yet. Thanks for adding the source. Looks like this will be put to bed until the next vote to change the name back. Happy New Year! Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that would make a lot of people happy. I see the article has been renamed already, so yeah, until the next vote... --Kbdank71 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland

I notice that this was deleted, can you explain why. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD was here. --Kbdank71 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That CFD was for "Fooian-born football (soccer) players" - if this CFD was publicised wider than just a couple of people then the result would have been different. The CAT must be reinstated immediately.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This CFD covered many categories, including this one (did you expand the "Nominated categories" section to see which categories were nominated?). It was publicized no more or less than any other CFD is, in fact, it was listed at CFD and the category was tagged since December 24, well longer than the required five days. I'll have to decline your request. --Kbdank71 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is going to cause a lot of shit I assure you. What wasnt at least the Football Project made aware of this. This is a retarded way of going about wiki business in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally, the relevant wikiproject should have been informed. These were quite worthwhile categories which have been deleted without most of the concerned users being notified. I only found out about it when players on my watchlist (eg Andy Goram) were having the deleted category removed. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody. There's a forum for complaints like this, and it's not Kbdank's talk page, as he's just implementing decisions based on consensus. The forum is at WP:DRV. Cheers, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I only found out in a similar way - if the notice was put on a bigger category than "Fooian-born" - maybe like Brazilian born or English born then maybe people who actually knew what they were talking about could have had a say. Kbdank71, appears happy that the categories were deleted and unwilling or unable to understand the issues at hand.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:DRV? Anyone ... ? (Incidentally, all the categories were tagged, despite what you suggest, so that may not be a good argument at CfD.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to complain that no wikiprojects were notified, the proper person to complain to is the nominator, although there is no rule stating that must be done. Same for who to complain to about the notice, although as I said above, Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland had a very large notice added to it weeks ago. Might I ask you a question: Some of you found out about this because your footy articles are on your watchlist. Do none of you watch any categories?

And while we're all here, let me explain something to you about wikiprojects. There are far too many wikiprojects on wikipedia to keep track of. It is difficult to impossible to know what articles/categories/templates "belong" to each one of these projects. The only way I can find out is by those cute templates that are added to the talk pages. Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland had one of these templates. It was from wikiproject ireland, not footy. So even if I was the nominator, I wouldn't have known to let the football project know about it. I can't, nor will I assume which particular groups have a stake in any of the discussions I close at CFD. That is up to you to let it be known (or even better, take the several seconds to drop by CFD every few days to see what is nominated). I do not check the qualifications of any participants nor will I assume that any of them do or do not "know what they are talking about".

I am neither happy nor unhappy that these were deleted. I have no opinion on them at all. I can tell you that if you want me to do something, you might want to re-think your strategy of a)demanding I do it, b)saying what I did "is going to cause a lot of shit", c)calling my actions "retarded", and d)insinuating I'm one of the "idiots running the asylum". --Kbdank71 03:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV states that any concern should be aired on the closer's talk page first. (discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).) I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that a cfd about footballers should lead to notification of the football project, but anyway. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps others feel that it's blindingly obvious that users/projects that care about the fate of certain categories should include those categories on their watchlists, lest they be caught unawares. Otherwise you're just relying on the chance that a nominator (1) knows about the existence and identity of specific WikiProjects; (2) is kind and thoughtful; and (3) has enough time to go through the notification process. Long odds. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha

Welcome back to CfD processing. I'm sure you'll stick around this time, since everything is so different now .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooray. --Kbdank71 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cape Verdean American categories

Kbdank71,

You closed several discussions on Cape Verdean American categories today but I feel like your decision was incorrect. You closed all categories as "keep", though I would say the disagreement was no consensus at best. While more users "voted" for keep, none of them used arguments based on precedents, as I had. Further, most of the arguments were to be avoided, such as it is usefull and it causes no harm. I ask that you reconsider your decision. --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all arguments need to be based on precedent, although it's useful if they are. I re-read the discussions again, but I didn't find any of the keeps to be so weak that I would need to discount any of them. As such, I have to stand by the close. --Kbdank71 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes, they are discussions. The better arguments should be used, not those with the most supporters. Furthmore, re-reading the discussions again, two people supported upmerging/deletion, one was initially supported upmerge/deletion then became neutral/weak keep, and 3 people supported keeping, using weak arguments described above. I don't see how you could have closed as keep. It is at best no consensus and probably should be a delete/upmerge based on arguments based on policies and precedent (which is included in the policy!).--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't you responded to me yet? I have made a valid argument for why you mistakenly closed the CFD, yet you will not engage me in a discussion on it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's because I had nothing new to add to the discussion. I don't believe I closed it incorrectly. --Kbdank71 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least explain why it should be kept? I don't understand your rationale at all. An even number of users were split and the keep crowd didn't have a leg to stand on, honestly. It is discourteous to simply say "I've got nothing else to say" when you haven't said anything in the first place!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_27#Category:Theatres_in_the_United_States

I would kindly like to review the decision made in this vote page. If you do not mind, I will state several reasons why there is consensus to move:

• The guidelines support it
• The reliable sources clearly point towards a move - the oppose posts do not name specific reliable sources and citations that disagree with the conclusion - except for the OED - But even that was discounted by the fact that the user did not make a specific OED citation, and also that the OED website says that "theater" is American usage
• One "vote," "Oppose – it's not tagged; and the cfd in Sept 2008 by the same nom is fairly recent and looks more like an oppose than a support. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)", only specified how it was nominated and that it "looks more like an oppose". The nomination issues were fixed, and the editor never cited any particular reasons for actually opposing it, so it does not count. That's right, it should not be taken into consideration at all.
  • His response was "Well, if you wish to nominate the whole US tree, it all needs to be tagged and listed. (It is perfectly in order to cite previous cfds, particularly if recent, without needing to repeat the oppose arguments."
    • And mine was "In this case you have to clarify them because the reasons varied in the nomination depending on who opposed. Some were conditional on the way the categories were tagged. Other reasons were proven to be invalid (see the outcome of the Johnbod oppose statement below) via discussion, so new reasons have to be created. Please specify any additional specific reasons..." - he never cited anything specific. You know what happened with that first renaming proposal, so in order for his "Oppose" to be justified he needed to cite a specific grievance, or else the "because of the previous one" makes no sense whatsoever.
• Of the rest, in favor there were (including myself) five six - and there were three opposing. - 62.5% (so there is a majority to approve - not quite 66.6% - but close) 66% Of the three opposing I challenged the rationale. None provided any reliable sources and citations that clearly showed that their argument would override Wikipedia guidelines.

If there is a place I am supposed to appeal it to, I would be glad to take it there too. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the arguments, and I still don't see the consensus. If you would like to appeal, you can do it at WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 19:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I try a DRV, do you mind if you make a specific closing statement? That way I will know exactly what to address when doing a DRV. Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found that there were five in favor statements, and if you add that to mine - and consider the three remaining opposes - then it's 66% WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick piece of trivia: where I went to school, 66% was an F. As for DRV, just explain how you think there is consensus. I thought it was close, but we weren't playing horseshoes or hand grenades. --Kbdank71 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus (Policy) says '"Consensus" between a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines.' - Therefore consensus is complying with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. - My position is that the move will put the category tree in most common American English name. WP:ENGVAR is a part of a guideline, so the discussion should be "how should ENGVAR be best applied?" - The pro-move has reams of evidence backing it up, and it has proof that moving the article tree complies with the most common usage of Standard American English WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#English_spelling_comparison_chart in fact lists preferred spellings by national origin, with the first stated first - And theater comes first for the United States. This, too, is a guideline, and it has sources.

A lot of people have the view that consensus is NOT the same as unanimity. This essay, Wikipedia:What_is_consensus? states: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best." - On Wikipedia 66% "can be passing," depending on the particular dispute.

It's not an exact "vote" as consensus is not a vote. But it shows that a majority agree that the move is compliant with policy. As what the essay says, you need to afford the "weight" to the group with the sourcing that proves that "theater" is the preferred word in American English and therefore the categories need to reflect this.

So you should judge consensus mostly by who "wins" the argument - or who has the argument that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The "Pro" side not only has a majority, but it also has the reliable sources and the policy backing that clearly complies with guidelines and policies.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_11#11_January_2009 WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) strikers

Since your bot is in the process of moving the contents of Category:Football (soccer) strikers to Category:Football (soccer) forwards perhaps you could also ensure all the related stub templates such as {{Argentina-footy-striker-stub}} are also moved? Regards King of the North East 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the request. That template is not in the category being moved. --Kbdank71 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If it has been decided to call all offensive (in the attacking sense) footballers "forwards" rather than "stikers" it seems odd to refer to them using a sentence structure like "This biographical article related to an Argentine football striker is a stub", surely the stub template and its wording should be changed to reflect the new policy to call them forwards. As these stub templates do not seem to be carefully categorised into cat:football striker stubs, I thought it would be easier for someone with a bot to find them all (there are hundreds of them) and have them changed (a non-controversial move if its allowed for stub templates?) rather than me spending hours trawling through all the footy-bio-stubs to find them and list them at TfD, if thats where stubs are moved and then wait weeks for the discussion to run. Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said before. King of the North East 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with TFD, so I'm not sure if a decision at CFD would hold any weight as precedent to change a template. It makes sense, seeing as the striker article now redirects to forward, and because of that, the category was changed, but what is obvious to me isn't always obvious to others. And even if there was approval to change all of the templates, my bot isn't written to do that. So you probably will need to go through TFD, even if just to find the next steps. --Kbdank71 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stub categories and templates are controlled by the sub sorting task force. Try checking at WP:WSS. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit "wars"

Hi there KBDANK, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

I don't like edit wars, and really respect other people's work (so yours too), so i now proceed to send you a message to try and clear my doubts...

In Derlei's article, or so i thought (because when i copy/pasted some stuff in another article i was also editing i saw the same pattern and when i clicked in history and your contributions, i saw HUNDREDS of other players), the category FOOTBALL STRIKERS was changed to FOOTBALL FORWARDS. I would really like to know why, so i can understand your "train of thought" for good clean nice teamwork from now on...

I don't know if you are familiar with football and its stuff (assuming by your interest i assume you do), but DERLEI is a pure striker, just check his goal rate, here at "our site". Also rest assured i reverted it only once, now i left the matter be and sent you this message, nothing has been touched (or will be) by me from now on.

From PORTUGAL, nice work and life, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not interested in football (American or soccer). The category change is a result of a discussion at CFD here. --Kbdank71 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming category Ambiguous place names

I see that a decision was made to rename this category. Do you know when that might be done? I ask because I've been working with a set of pages (Wikipedia:Multiple-place names (A) and the pages for the other letters) that list pages in this category. I was just about to check all the entries to see if they had the proper category. However, if it's about to be renamed, maybe I should wait. What do you think? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been listed at [1], waiting for an automatic depopulation. The template has been fixed, and if you look at the articles, they appear to be in the correct category, but the category listing won't update immediately. --Kbdank71 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this seems to be a slow go. We have another template update that is taking forever. Are you aware of any null edit bots that work off of a category? That seems to be the only fix for some of these right now. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this until today. I'm running Kbdankbot on it when it's not running other category renames or deletes. Long story short, it isn't programmed to make null edits per se, but because I'm a lousy programmer, it makes them just the same. Still slow going, but it's going. What's the other template update you speak of? --Kbdank71 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting categories

When deleting a category because the name has been change, such as Category:Schools in Washington, would it be possible to include the new name of the category in the deletion log along with the link to the CFD? It would sure make it easier for new users to understand what is going on. Why should we force all users to wade through the CFD when all they want is to go to the new category. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion. --Russ (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it for the washington ones since there are a lot to "wade through". But the vast majority of CFD pages do not have so many entries that you won't immediately see the discussion. --Kbdank71 14:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another deleted category issue

You deleted Category:Cyclopses after moving all its contents into Category:Cyclopes (per CfD), but you left behind a category redirect in the latter category to the old, deleted one. --Russ (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kbdank71 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish people

You said "there are many problems with Northern Ireland which this CFD is not meant to resolve". Well you just did. You have just declared that:

• Northern Irish has no logical meaning (and its use in this Category was about the simplest possible use of the term on Wikipedia, to identify people form an area with defined borders)
• Category names can be changed if there is some sort of identity dispute regarding people who live within defined borders (which has implications for many others like Macedonian People, Kosovan/Serbian People etc)
• People are dumb enough to think that the term Northern Irish under a Category:People by Nationality could have possibly been a vague area to the north including bits of Ireland, analagous to a category for the East or West or South. I would love to Cfd rename Category:Irish people to Category:People from Southern Ireland on this odd logic.

The cost/benefit ratio to the project of making statements like this just is off the chart. The nom actually declared that he thought this rename was justified because he thought British was an ethnicity. Well, Britain/British is as much an ethnic group/race as Northern Ireland/Northern Irish is. Any argument from a race/ethnicity perspective was clearly always totally irrelevant. And arguments from a citizenship POV were also pretty pointless, per all the arguments made about Wales etc, and the fact that existing structure already recognised that Northern Irish People could be both British or Irish. The nominator might have had a point were this not the case, but it wasn't. Renaming the Category to become a single unique special case, was an absolutely unnecessary piece of overkill, and is of course going to taken to different arenas as a 'precedent'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Each case should stand on its own merit Mick. I asked over and over again for someone to answer two questions - a. what is the category trying to do and b. define "Nortern Irish" without using OR. It was side stepped and avoided. I backed my argument up with sources and the only decent argument against my position was "consistancy" - flimsy. And its not a unique case, see Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe--Vintagekits (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe is not a great example to use here, since (1) there's no dispute that being from São Tomé and Príncipe is a distinct nationality, so the name wasn't selected because of the potential nationality implications of the format, and (2) right now it is pretty much the only first-level nationality category that hasn't been converted to the form "Foo people". I've nominated it for renaming so it no longer sticks out like a sore thumb. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a real shame that you either can't or won't realise that 'From Northern Ireland' as filed under 'People by Nationality' still asserts the POV the Northern Ireland/Northern Irish is a nationality. Ethnicity/race were total irrelevances. Your argument was supporting deletion not renaming, or renaming the entire category system. Either you just didn't realise that, or you are happy to disrupt perfectly reasonable aims for consistency to use Wikipedia to make a point, which to my mind 'from Northern Ireland' fails to land at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And the above ignores the existence of sub-categories like Category:Northern Irish comedians etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All subcategories will also by moved. Except this one Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland--Vintagekits (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you must have just been really busy, and addressing the inherent contradictions emergent in the recent nationality Cfd closures you made was just not worthy of your time. You didn't even have the sense to have your judgement endorsed by seeking independant closure. If you truly are wanting the cfd system not to appear inherently pointless, you are not making any headway. It is clear the only thing required for changing a Category names is enough single issue persistence. Having a centralised Cfd process at all, let alone established conventions and guidelines, seems quite utterly pointless, as it is so obviously open to manipulation for zero benefit to the rest of Categorisation. And lets not kid ourselves here, changing NI was not some enlightened example of IAR, the benefits are utterly unproven, with people being selectively deaf all round when the obvious flaws in their thinking is pointed out. Christ, where the argument went down to minutia in NI, nobody even got the basic facts right first for the others. Some of the comments on those miniscule debates you are no doubt claiming show clear community consensus (as we have to guess what your weighting of opinion was as usual, which is daft given the usual parsity of anyone simply giving a fuck about the system in general), are so obviously contrdictory to the outcome of NI, it is unreal. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And I notice that Northern Irish comedians are still happily categorised as Northern Irish. MickMacNee (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Churches by patron saint

As long as I can count, in the discussion about Churches by patron saint the votes were: Delete 5 (3 Listify and delete); Keep 6 (1 Keep but Rename). You say in reading this discussion, I am unable to see any reason to keep as a category, but most of users see reasons to keep. Joseolgon (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD is a discussion, not a vote count. As for "any reason", you are correct, there were many people who gave reasons to keep, but they were weaker than the arguments for deletion (or listifying). Also, which I forgot to mention in the close, is the deleted category used as an example of overcategorization, listed at WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, Churches named for St Dunstan. --Kbdank71 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church issues

Thanks for helping with the "Former Unificationists" category. You mentioned List of Unificationists. I suggested on the talk page that it be deleted since it is such a BLP nightmare. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If people are listed as "former" for the reasons listed at the CFD, I think I have to agree. --Kbdank71 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Jedi survivors of Order 66

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Jedi survivors of Order 66, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non notable aspect of a notable series of works. Star Wars is notable, the purge is a notable event in the saga, but a list of which Jedi survived it (which seems to expand with every new novel and game anyway) is an overly detailed list with no real-world significance. The article on the Great Purge already describes the survivors and their method of surviving in detail.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but "created from listification of category" in my edit summary should have said "per a discussion at CFD". I have no stake in the article. --Kbdank71 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I boldly merged it into Great_Jedi_Purge#Survivors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have had no idea where to put it. --Kbdank71 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It got edited out but at least it's in the edit history. Even without the list it's a sensible redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominator's plight

Hi, I noticed that a category that was successfully nominated for renaming has not yet been renamed (Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores). I was the nominator and I saw that you recently edited that category. Would you please move the category per the discussion. Cheers,Synchronism (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is listed at WP:CFDWM for a manual move. Unfortunately, a bot can't make this change, it needs to wait for someone who has time to do it manually. --Kbdank71 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I just create the category as a copy and request the deletion of the old one? I thought only administrators could move categories, but they can't be moved like other pages I gather.Synchronism (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't. In order to "rename" a category, you have to create the new one, then edit every article in the category to point to the new one. Since this is a merge to multiple targets, someone also has to read the article to see if it should go into "Spanish explorers" or "Spanish conquistadors". Only when that is done and the old category is empty can it be deleted. This one isn't going to be a quick move, no matter who does it. --Kbdank71 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be temporarily moved though to correct spelling, that is what I've done, and let the contentious task of splitting to those who pledged to do so.Synchronism (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now can you go fix the listing at WP:CFDWM? Otherwise, it looks like it has already been completed, and someone is just going to remove it. As for "pledged to do so", there is nobody who has pledged to do that. It could be there for months. Do you have any time to help with it? --Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that listing. Have I done other things correctly so far?. If so, then I'll take the time to filter out the non-conquistadors, if there are any, in the future if no other steps forth. You're right that no one "pledged" to do so, but several editors showed interest. I only wanted the spelling change and was quite neutral about the splitting.

The issue is that may conquistadors are also explorers. Their exploration is often secondary, so just categorizing them as conquistadors is ok. However some will have to be listed in two categories because of their noteworthiness as explorers. It will require a lot of work and study.Synchronism (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance.Synchronism (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional time travellers

Please read the talk page at the category:fictional time travellers. I have the blessing of the previous CfD's closing admin to recreate the category, and I've laid out my plan to help this category be useful. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to do with Kbdank71. Responded at my talk page, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, KBdank. I misread that you participaged in the new deletion, but it was one in 2007. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Large family car

Dear Kbdank71,

Please see [2] - this is the website of EuroNCAP, an organization similar to IIHS, NHTSA and EPA in setting official car classification in Europe. And then you could kindly restore the category - as well as the one for small family cars, if you cared to delete it too.

Thank you,

PrinceGloria (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello? PrinceGloria (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm don't know if that qualifies as a reliable source. Just because something is on the web doesn't mean we can use it as a source. Please see WP:RS. --Kbdank71 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kbdank, please, let us be reasonable. This is an official pan-European organization for automotive safety. Would you qualify IIHS or NHTSA as "unreliable sources"? Moreover, the "large family car" and "small family car" classes are widely used accross English-language automotive publications of any kind. Just google if you please. There is a different car class system in Europe than in North America / US, and we cannot just go deleting categories because North American users don't know / don't like them. I am really surprised by your insistence on that. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete the category because of anything I did or didn't know (or like). I deleted it based upon the discussion. There was mention there that "large family car" is undefinable, and that Large family car has no references. Did you read WP:RS? "reliable, third-party, published sources" I don't know if euroncap.com is third-party, based upon what you have said. I would recommend you speak with the person who nominated the category for deletion, User:Good Olfactory, and get his opinion (I believe he is more worldly than I am, and may have a better insight). --Kbdank71 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That essentially was part of my reasoning—the article large family car is very short and is unreferenced. I saw no reason for a corresponding category when the article base was so weak. We also have mid-size car, which is (kind of) referenced, and the two seem to just be the different names for the same thing on different continents, so I thought that the articles should probably be merged, with Category:Mid-size cars perhaps named-changed to a more universal term that can apply to cars of that class on all continents. That's just my opinion, though.

I don't usually notify WikiProjects of category nominations anymore because there are so many Projects now I never know who would and who wouldn't be interested in nominations, and when I notify one I then get yelled at because I didn't notify another one. I suggest if a Project cares about a category they get a user to watch the category in their watchlist. (And no, I'm not interested in debating that point, since it's just my suggestion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed very short and unreferenced, because it grew rife with OR, POV and whatnot, and to add to the insult, merged into mid-size car (why ever merge a different article into the other to go on explaining how the former thing is actually different?), so out of mercy I rescued the sensible bit I could find in the article's history. I admit I didn't have the time to expand it, or properly reference it (the discussion with you guys will probably make up 90% of the time I have for Wikipedia this month), but still, the subject is valid. If you had doubts about it, why didn't you first discuss in the article's talk page? The article should go through AfD first and only then the category IMHO.

Anyhow, do your Google thing, or ask any British user to see the term is genuine. Corresponding names for the same entity exist in other European countries / languages, but since this is the English-language Wikipedia, the article is entitled "Large family car", and not "Segment D" or "Mittelklasseauto".

If you don't care to notify WikiProjects of CfD's, please at least try the article first in such cases - perhaps it is just in a stub form, not describing a subject that doesn't exist, or is already described under another name.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I only have so much time, as with any other user, and I just do my best. I primarily work with categories. We are all volunteers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If it would make everyone feel better to reverse the cars decisions or at least allow re-creation, it would be OK with me. I'm not anxious at the present time due to time constraints to get into a debate about European car class minutiae. If something's done to change the result, I won't oppose a reversal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll second what User:PrinceGloria says. EuroNCAP is a very official body. Reading the deletion debates, there seems to have been a misunderstanding (by a Canadian IP for one) that the categories were merely descriptive, and not an official classification. We now have, in a worst-case scenario as far as systemic bias is concerned, cars categorized by their American-market size classification only, even though they're designed, built, and sold mostly in Europe (e.g. Volkswagen Passat). --DeLarge (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, large family car is still without any citations. Once that gets fixed, such that it sets forth referenced and clear classification criteria that can be used to populate the category, let me know and I'll recreate the category myself. But fixing that article should be the first step before it can provide the basis for a category. Postdlf (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, who is the user from a "Canadian IP" who misunderstood? I'm Canadian, but I'm certainly not working off a Canadian IP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another deleted category

Hello. You deleted Category:Yugoslavian figure skaters after moving articles to Category:Yugoslav figure skaters, but the latter contains a {{category redirect}} to the deleted category, so the content of the original category page needs to be restored. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Kbdank71 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot modified to overwrite the redirect. --Kbdank71 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923)

With regard to your deletion of Category:Matches at the Wembley Stadium (1923), I have added a speedy deletion tag to Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923) as the latter category was created in order to circumvent the CfD on the former. Cheers. – PeeJay 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In the interests of fairness, I left a warning on User talk:Mr Hall of England notifying him of the speedy tag. --Kbdank71 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've added it to the CFD working queue for emptying and deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re WP Bellybutton Lint

I like it—it's something I would definitely point people to (or just blatantly copy). The last section was a bit of a snark, I thought, which is funny but may not be the best approach for these users, who usually are quite upset if they care enough to challenge you about it. But overall I think the Q–A format is effective and would serve it's purpose well. You could also instruct users to make comments re: the essay on the essay talk page, which could then be used as the rant page, instead of your main talk page, since all too often that's all this page is used for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good ideas, I'll make the adjustments over the weekend. --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_17#Category:American_conservative_writers

As you have left no explanation of your decision to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_17#Category:American_conservative_writers as "merge", I am approaching you to provide some perspective as to how you considered the various viewpoints presented that resulted in your decision. Any guidance as to how these perspectives were weighed will be most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after I discounted all of the bickering, I was left with a very strong precedent of the deletion of Category:American conservatives, a lack of a definition of "American conservative writer" (is this category only for conservatives who write about conservative issues, or can non-conservatives who write about conservative issues, and conservatives who write about non-conservative issues (or non-political issues for that matter) be in it as well?), and with no definition, it's hard to say it's defining for someone. --Kbdank71 14:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You discounted my bickering? But ... I ... Here I thought that was going to put my case over the top! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT politicians currently in office

Would you be so kind as to recover the contents of the category merged here and listify it to a user subpage for me? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Otto4711/LGBT politicians from the United States currently in office. I just copied from my bot's contribs. If you want a list with links, check here: [3] and scroll down to January 14. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD to AHB

Heh. You mean there's no movement afoot to rename CFD to AHB? ("ad-homenem-bitchfest") Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)