User talk:Freakofnurture: Difference between revisions
Orderinchaos (talk | contribs) →Oz films: agree |
No edit summary |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Just like your user page screen shot summary says it happens - for more exciting details see- |
Just like your user page screen shot summary says it happens - for more exciting details see- |
||
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization]] - cheers [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization]] - cheers [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I only stumbled into this when I noticed that some categories had been aggressively emptied and then tagged as "db-empty" or whatever. CFD exists for a reason, I think. As far as practical matters go, categories which become exceedingly populous are typically broken into smaller ones (with the occasionally noteworthy exception, e.g. [[:Category:Living people]]). I'll stop |
:I only stumbled into this when I noticed that some categories had been aggressively emptied and then tagged as "db-empty" or whatever. CFD exists for a reason, I think. As far as practical matters go, categories which become exceedingly populous are typically broken into smaller ones (with the occasionally noteworthy exception, e.g. [[:Category:Living people]]). I'll stop reverting the guy's edits, but I would generally have more confidence in a discussion at CFD than on the talk page of a specific (and daresay cliquish?) wiki-project. —<tt>'''[[special:contributions/freakofnurture|freak]]([[w:en:user talk:freakofnurture|talk]])'''</tt> 17:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Agree with you on this one. I reverted one category earlier tonight. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
::Agree with you on this one. I reverted one category earlier tonight. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::So let's send the affected categories to ''Categories for '''Discussion''''' in hopes of a broader "consensus" on the issue... —<tt>'''[[special:contributions/freakofnurture|freak]]([[w:en:user talk:freakofnurture|talk]])'''</tt> 17:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:48, 7 October 2007
Freakofnurture is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia less often |
R.I.P. Fran (July 20, 2007, "cerebrovascular accident") | ||
ARCHIVES |
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Votes for_banning
Wikipedia:Votes for_banning, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for_banning and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Votes for_banning during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercury 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Reversion
Thanks for the clean-up. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oz films
Just like your user page screen shot summary says it happens - for more exciting details see- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization - cheers SatuSuro 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I only stumbled into this when I noticed that some categories had been aggressively emptied and then tagged as "db-empty" or whatever. CFD exists for a reason, I think. As far as practical matters go, categories which become exceedingly populous are typically broken into smaller ones (with the occasionally noteworthy exception, e.g. Category:Living people). I'll stop reverting the guy's edits, but I would generally have more confidence in a discussion at CFD than on the talk page of a specific (and daresay cliquish?) wiki-project. —freak(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with you on this one. I reverted one category earlier tonight. Orderinchaos 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)