Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Split[edit]

I think this section needs to be split off and put onto another page. The Working page is supposed to be bot-readable, yet none of this stuff looks like it can be done by bot since there are so many specialized instructions, and also, there seems to be lots of threaded discussion, which greatly increases the chances that someone will unknowingly introduce syntax that causes a bot misparse. I recommend moving this section to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual; what do you all think? --Cyde Weys 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Xdamrtalk 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I'll go ahead tomorrow if there are no objections. Can't see where there should be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Anything to make the bots work easier, and the manual work easier.-Andrew c 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. the wub "?!" 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor[edit]

I mostly just did a straight paste. Obviously this should be refactored, possibly into sections by type of work needed. - jc37 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving categories to talk pages[edit]

For the reference book moves, we really need to modify the templates to issue a warning if they are used on other then the talk page. Should this be a standard for any categories being re-purposed? Vegaswikian 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy moves in manual???[edit]

I'm confused by the last rearrangement. Speedy moves are done by bots and are not manual. Also what happened to all of the template moves to talk pages? Vegaswikian 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my doing. The speedy moves were done by my bot. Since WP:CFD/W is now permanently fully protected, there's no way for me to move those to the 'Ready for deletion' section. And since I'm not an admin, I can't just delete the cats the bot has emptied either.
That's why I figured, instead of just letting them sit there (which might mean that the operator of another, possibly human-assisted, bot loads the cats and verifies that they're kosher for nothing), I'd just move them to WP:CFDWM's 'Ready for deletion' section. That way, if an admin deletes the empty cats, they show up as redlins on WP:CFD/W. With regard to your second questions, I think those were finished but I'm not entirely sure. -- Seed 2.0 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The by-source move to talk categories were completed by myself (actually my bot). -- pb30<talk> 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki a category?[edit]

Anyone know how to transwiki a category (and possibly the images contained therein)? --Kbdank71 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kbdank71 - I just tried it on a sandbox and it worked. {{Category:Political art}} and voilá, transcluded category. Looks pretty dangerous to me. --Lquilter (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant transwiki, not transclude. There was a category of images that needed to go to commons, and I didn't want to screw it up because I didn't know how to do it. Thanks for the reply, though, I had no idea you could transclude a category. Makes sense, though. --Kbdank71 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doh, of course - pre-caffeine. --Lquilter (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.... so, umm, now that i am reading actual words instead of the inside of my brain again, did you figure out the transwiki question? --Lquilter (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, those lovely pre-caffeine moments... I hate them so much (pauses to take a swig of scalding hot coffee) Yeah, that's the stuff... :)
No, sadly, I didn't. As I was checking to see if anyone had answered my query, I noticed someone had gone ahead and just made the move. --Kbdank71 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

listified template[edit]

Following the model of the {{listify}} template, I created {{listified}} to apply to the talk pages of lists created as a result of CFD. My hope is this will make previous discussions more readily available and reduce some of the AFD/CFD boomerang in which editors that participate in one *FD but not the other create cycles of inconsistent recommendations. --Lquilter (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my first move to "ready for deletion"[edit]

I just did my first move to "ready for deletion" here. If I messed it up, please let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bot for Multiple merge targets[edit]

Would anyone be opposed to a bot for some of the multiple merge targets? Assuming that all pages in Category:XXX would be merged to both Category:YYY and Category:ZZZ. I believe this would be pretty easy to setup, and I could run the bot as needed. Just curious if anyone has any opinions/ideas on this? Avicennasis @ 19:44, 10 Nisan 5771 / 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. Avicennasis @ 23:59, 19 Nisan 5771 / 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the bot is a good idea. The only issue I have is how to create the new target categories since all of the parent categories would likely not be the same for every new category. One solution would be to have the bot use the existing category's categories and then tag the nomination so that a human can go in and make the needed changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ones I've seen so far have already listed the existing category, or have the name already chosen to create. But I agree - if a cat needs made, it should be done by a human. Bot has been approved, so hopefully multiple merge targets will be easier to handle. :-) Avicennasis @ 06:28, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)
How do we list them? Or will the bot be processing the manual list? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can be listed as usual here - it's not an adminbot, so it can't edit WP:CFD/W. :) Or someone could ping me, though I usually check here fairly often. Avicennasis @ 21:21, 3 Sivan 5771 / 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Job queue not queuing?[edit]

I'm getting the impression that when templates are changed the job queue often isn't updating the cache effect. Certainly there have been times when I've had to run a manual AWB null edit surge to clear some of these.

And Category:Articles containing Japanese language text seems to be even worse, with some articles not actually catching the new category until they've been resaved - a possible side effect of their complex construction? I don't know how many of these articles are affected. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the job queue is just really, really long and can take weeks to completely process from beginning to end. I'm not sure if this is right, or if the job queue is actually missing some things. I don't know about the second issue, but I think Category:Articles containing Japanese language text had 65,000 articles when it was listed here yesterday and now it's down to 52,000. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few (over 50) categories on this page that have emptied out since they were listed here. I checked some of the relevant articles in those categories, and from what I can see no one has made any edits to the ones I checked. Of course, the edit history doesn't list null edits, so I'm not sure if someone is going around null editing these individual articles through? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The job queue does appear to be broke, again. If not broken, it is slow. And yes, I have done some null edits for categories with only 1 member. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been null editing some of the tiniest categories to clear them out. With the Japanese one I've done a few null edits to test the templates and noticed the edit window lists the unhyphenated category before saving but a save generates the hyphenated form.
I suspect most of the 13,000 that have cleared through are thanks to people actually editing the aticles - there are some quite active projects on various Japanese subjects. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another example: Null editing Valverde del Fresno brought up the following:

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Afte the null edit the hyphenated versions appear. This is more complicated than when the template generated categories are displayed on the articule. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC) That suggests that the job queue won't tackle this one at all. Is there a n[reply]

Well, that all cleared up quickly. Did anyone do anything fancy, or did it just happen? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too. Unless someone was beta testing some bot code, someone obviously fixed/adjusted something. Anyone want to add this to Category:Conspiracy theories? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo Certified Songs[edit]

Category:Vevo Certified songs has now been listified. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listifying[edit]

Listifying (2)[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 23
  • @Fayenatic london and MER-C: with respect to the latter comment, the creation of a list probably always requires an editorial decision about the list, independently from the deletion of the category. So I wonder whether CfD discussions should be closed as "listify" at all, or whether they'd better instead be closed as "delete and oh by the way if anyone wants to create a list, you will find the names of the articles on the talk page". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly some should be closed as Listify, when there is an existing list, either as a standalone page or as a section within an article, or where a section could be added to an article without making the page unbalanced, or where a new list page would be part of an existing series of lists. In other cases I might go to work adding a header section, or I might create a bare list and tag it as {{lead missing}}. In the latter case I would draw the attention of a relevant project or the original category creator. If such a page does not get improved within a reasonable time then it's a candidate for AfD. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference, a new list based on the category linked above was inserted here. Other editors may leave or delete that section as they see fit. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

@Fayenatic london: from what I can tell, Category:Template-protected redirects appears to still be populated by un-updated templates? 73.93.5.246 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed 73.93.5.246 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual&oldid=1165548271"