Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Archive 1

message: This change was a mistake that unfortunately wasn't caught in the discussion because of the huge number of categories listed.  They should have been changed to :Category:Algol programming language family can it be corrected?  --JeffW 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I'll add it to the queue. My apologies. Syrthiss 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my cut-n-paste error so it should be (and is) my apologies. If there's away for it to be double checked that would be good, but I think it's fixed. SMALL was the only one left in :Category:ABCL programming language family that should have been in :Category:Algol programming language family instead. The other three in :Category:ABCL programming language family are all ABCL  languages. It looks like the rest had already caught by Cyde and others. Sorry! -- JLaTondre 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok.  Thanks for following up on it then. Syrthiss 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ** [[:Category:ALGOL dialects]] to [[:Category:ABCL programming language family]] 

message: Just so you guys know, I've programmed up a little something special for Cydebot that lets him tackle everything on this page with a single command.  So if stuff is ever lagging behind just send me a ping and I can have Cydebot do it all in a jiffy ... there's no reason to waste time setting up a bot manually to handle each different move, especially when there's lots of them to work on.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full automation 

message: There was this line: 
::**:category:Fictional characters with spiritual awareness - unchanged
on the /Working page under Moves and Deletes. whoever what pasted it, please don't!!. It confuses bots. And if there was nothign to do, why list it at all? --  Drini 15:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keeping you on your toes.  Or an oversight on my part.  --Kbdank71 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm here, what are you doing with the discussions you closed on the 24th?  I don't see anything happening with them, nor are they listed on cfd/w.  --Kbdank71 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I got interrupted while I was doing them. I?m resuming the working, and wil lcontinue clearing logs along the day. 23 and 24 have some really huge categories, I?ve been doing superheroe stuff for the past 2 hours. --  Drini 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, for cases that noone will really dispute since they're clear cut, I usually clear them before closing. Only the ones I?m about to clear and not clear-cut, I?ll close first (so noone closes witha different option in the middle of my run). I do this precisely to minimize the state of closed CFDs whose category has not been processed. --  Drini 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  No problem, I was just curious.  I noticed the clear cut ones that were deleted but not closed yet.  I just went ahead and closed them.  --Kbdank71 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Backlog cleared sir! Almost 5000 pages done. --  Drini 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much for the help.  It's very appreciated.  --Kbdank71 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some of the discussions from Sept-24 may still have some pending actions, such as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24#Category:Fictional participants of a love triangle which was closed delete, but not yet deleted.  In general is it OK for me to list these on cfd/w or would you prefer that only admins put things on that page when they close the discussions? --After Midnight 0001 12:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If some categories still need to be processed (like Fictional love triangle) for all means, DO relist them again on the /working page, it's easier for us to spot them there. --  Drini 00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  It's good to know that I am allowed to do this when needed.  I've added a couple from the 24th onto the page. --After Midnight 0001 02:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARGHHHHH 

message: Speaking of superheroes... is it just me or are there just way too many of these "fictional" categories?  In the last few weeks, I have nom'ed a couple of these and I've seen alot of activity on many others.  Do we have a glut, or are we comfortable with the current state? --After Midnight 0001 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional cats

message: I ain't being funny or anything, but why can't bots complete this move? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want the cat redirect to get moved to aol.  If it won't, then have at it.  :)  --Kbdank71 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:America Online to Category:AOL 

message: I've been cleaning up some of the old entries in :Category:CfD 2006-10 ...  It
seems that when a bot renames a category, sometimes it makes a mistake and copies the cfr
tag into the new category.  Look at the history of :Category:Harvard Medical School alumni 
for an example.  The subst headers are considerably more difficult to parse.
I've gotten several warnings from AntiVandalBot, it gets annoyed
by people removing cfr/cfd/cfm tags.  I don't blame it, it's working as designed, we
want it to consider removing these tags as vandalism.  However, I've taken to putting
the discussion link as a comment to the change, so that someone looking over it later
can tell what was going on.
However, it's often quite difficult to find the discussion, since often there's no
indication of even what day to look at.  And then of course the discussion is often 
listed under the old name, and not the new one, or it could be part of an umbrella
nomination.
I've had a few thoughts about this ... it seems to me that when a new category gets
created as the result of a discussion on the cfd page, we ought to add a link to the
relevent discussion on the new page.  Otherwise it can be difficult to find, later. 
I've created a few of these, see :Category talk:Solar System, although
it seems strange to see a cfdend with an outcome of rename.
I'm hoping the bot bug can be fixed soon.  If they could be made to add some
kind of discussion link that would help a great deal too. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you run your bot to ignore everything between "BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE" and "END CFD TEMPLATE" when creating the new category?  As for finding the discussion, it should be fairly simple.  It's linked to in the CFD template "this category's entry".  And even if by mistake, the CFD stuff gets moved to the new category, the link will still point to the correct discussion.  And if, for whatever reason, it's not linked right (which it should be), "What links here" will get you to the discussion.  --Kbdank71 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waxy Yellow Buildup 

message: There's another big backlog of categories that have been emptied on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User. Can someone delete all of them, please?--Mike Selinker 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. the wub "?!" 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much obliged!--Mike Selinker 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm on it :-) the wub "?!" 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of CFDU empty categories 

message: Over on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/User, there are some categories that really need bots to handle them. AMong them are the conversion of :Category:User languages to :Category:Wikipedians by language, the conversion of :Category:User writing systems to :Category: Wikipedians by writing system, and the deletion of :Category:Friendly Wikipedians and :Category:Angel Wikipedians. If anyone has a bot can that can go to the working pages and take those necessary steps, I'd appreciate it.--Mike Selinker 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need a bot or two on UCFD 

message: My query is that when I visit a category page that contains links to hundreds of articles, such as :Category:Cleanup_from_December_2006, the initial page presented only presents a subset of the total articles, with links to the "next 200" etc. This is obviously a useful feature to stop a user's browser having to try and print 10,000 articles if you are viewing a huge category. However, is it possible to override this behaviour and get a list of all articles in a category on a single page, no matter how many there are? (perhaps by sending an argument in the URL such as "&showall=true") The reason I ask is that I have a bot that needs to fetch a list of all articles in a category and it would obviously be a lot easier if it could do this from a single page. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use the query API to fetch a list of category members, but this is limited to the first 500. AutoWikiBrowser seems to manage with fetching larger categories though, you might want to ask on the talk page how it does it. the wub "?!" 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to get a list of ALL category members on a single page?? 

message: While it makes sense to have removed bots that haven't been active since October or November, removing bots that were making daily CFD edits, including edits the day before the "purge"——makes no sense. I had made my latest CFD edits exactly one week prior to the list being deleted. How often will this have to be done? Do I have to add myself back to the list every time I don't make edits for a week? Just a mite heavy-handed.—DomBot / ChiDom talk 08:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culling bot list 

message: Can any of the bots do an upmerge only if the article is not already a member of another subcat for the parent? Vegaswikian 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upmerge but bot 

message: Several categories whose CfD was closed as "Listify then delete" have recently been deleted.  How can I find whether lists have actually been created for these categories or not?  I'm looking for the lists that should have been created from the now-deleted categories :Category:Doctor Who cast members, :Category:Doctor Who directors and the like.  Can someone point me to them?  And is there a way that in future "listified" categories can have some sort of pointer towards the list that's been created? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointers to lists created by listifying categories? 

message: :Category:Actors_by_science_fiction_television_series
I think this cat wasn't correctly cfd closed, and that since this cat should be listified actually per the performer by performance concensus --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not closed ? 

message: There's a rename for :Category:WikiProject Cheshire that's been stalled for a few days now.  The problem seems to be
that the usual transclusion magic isn't quite working right.  We can update the template, but the new categories don't take
effect until the relevent talk page gets touched.  I think I may have figured it out though.  The "broken" tags all include
the namespace specifier.  I'm not 100% sure that that's the problem, but the ones that work were transcluded the normal way,
and changing it always fixes the problem.  Of course any change fixes the problem.  In any even we certainly don't want to
update hundreds of files by hand.
Would it be possible for a bot to replace all  with 
?  Just removing the Template: is all thats required ... -- Prove It (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the servers are way backed up, with over 2 million in the job queue.  That's probably the problem. -- Prove It (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bot help? 

message: I contested a closing admin's "delete" decision for a category. I thought the admin made a mistake, and did not have a consensus, or even a rough consensus, to delete the category. I left the following message (paraphrased) at User talk:Cyde since Cyde runs the category deletion bot. The bot had depopulated the category, and then deleted the category.
Can the bot recreate the category? If not, then it is not easy to repopulate the category. I suggest instituting a standard waiting period of say, 2 days, before running the bot. I still haven't heard from the closing admin. I left a message on their user talk page. I don't see any great need to rush these things. Maybe a notice can be created for contested category deletions. Same as for contested speedy deletions of images. What happens if an official deletion review is started? Are you notified? Do you delete in spite of an official deletion review? That would really be wrong. I appreciate what you do. You need to appreciate my efforts, too, in my opinion. 
See Template:Db-reason. One can remove the speedy-delete template if the reason does not apply. Or one can add . We need some kind of "hang on" tag that creates a "hang-on" list of contested category deletions. Kind of like a category tag adds a page to a category list. That along with a 2-day waiting period should solve the problem, and give some time for the hang-on tag to be added. --Timeshifter 06:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:East Jerusalem closing admin decision was to delete it. Incorrectly, I believe. . See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Category:East Jerusalem closing admin decision to delete. I left a message at the user talk page of the closing admin. The deletion discussion took place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. The deletion was incorrect in my opinion due to this: From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page {emphasis added): "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion." I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says to ask the closing admin politely to correct possible mistakes in closing: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." --Timeshifter 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If DRV undeletes a category, it can be repopulated by reverting/undoing bot edits. It's easy for all categories except the very large ones. Conscious 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. --Timeshifter 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-day waiting period before running category deletion bot. "Hang on" tag.  

message: Title says it all really - do these still need to go to WP:CFD/W/M?  I only ask because it was my hazy impression that these could now be handled on CFD/W, though this might be completely wrong.  Anyone able to tell me?
Xdamrtalk 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously can't speak for Cyde or anyone but myself but, as it presents itself to me, the problem isn't so much that they can't be handled in an automated fashion. It's that they differ from the usual MO and therefore require human attention. In other words, if a move deviates from the usual A->B pattern, human interaction is required to tell the bot what to do. --S up? 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AMbot can handle these just fine, but many bots do need manual intervention to start the process for them, so they should be listed on the manual page.  Also, feel free to list any of them at User talk:AMbot/requests if you like. --After Midnight 0001 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merges to multiple destinations - can any bots handle these?

message: :Under the bot section, change to:
===Bots===
Bots task pages are listed below. Tasks on those pages are being handled by the bot, and may or may not also be listed below.

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

:I removed the inactive bots (no edits in the last 2 months or more) and add an active bot. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  by Animum: . ~ Wikihermit 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Protected 

message: Hi there.  Whenever you guys get a chance, can someone please send a bot to move:
*:Category:Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot
*:to ==> :Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed
Per SineBot's RFBA discussion.  I totally didn't realize that only one category was moved over. :P  Cheers. :) --slakr 04:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category member move 

message: I was going to close this CfD but, as a new admin, I have no idea how to do it. The closure should be that the articles that are now in this category, should be the corresponding talk pages. Example, Abayudaya is in this category but should not be. However Talk:Abayudaya should be in the category. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups is concerned but does not seem to have been very active in the CfD discussion. Articles are placed in this category by a infobox, which is very complex. There are over 700 articles in this category. How should this be done. I'm happy to leave this one to a more experienced admin but I'm curious. --Bduke 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without actually looking at the discussion, it sounds like you are wanting to close the discussion with a decision to repurpose the category to the talk pages.  Requests of this type are usually placed at WP:CFD/W/M#Maintenance categories. --After Midnight 0001 11:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is exactly how I think the CfD should be closed. These categories are to help the Project administer things. They belong on talk pages. However, I am not going to close it because I still do not understand exactly what to do. I am not sure the template adds all articles that it is on to the category, or only some that "need confirmation". Should the category be removed from the template first? That would depopulate the category. How then does a person or a bot know what talk pages to put in the category. I think it needs a more experienced admin that myself, but I would like to learn  from the process. --Bduke 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking to see how this could be done, hence not closing it myself. AWB can grab the list of pages in the category, then convert them to the corresponding talk pages. It can then run through and add a template or category to the correct talk pages, before removing the category from the infobox altogether. With almost 800 articles it would probably need someone with an AWB bot. CJLL Wright has closed as keep for now though, but this method would work if we decide to go ahead. the wub "?!" 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:"Related ethnic groups" needing confirmation

message: User:The wub/CloseCFD.js is a script for closing CfD debates, heavily based on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js. To use it, add
 importScript('User:The wub/CloseCFD.js');
to your monobook.js file. Then when you edit a CfD section, there should be a "close" tag at the top of your page. I hope to add automatic insertion of  on talk pages at some point. Any other suggestions are welcome on my talk. the wub "?!" 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing script 

message: Change
===Bots===
Bots task pages are listed below. Tasks on those pages are being handled by the bot, and may or may not also be listed below.

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

to 
===Bots===
Bots task pages are listed below. Tasks on those pages are being handled by the bot, and may or may not also be listed below.

* 
* 
* 
* 

I removed all bots that haven't edited in over a month. Carbon Monoxide 16:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined.  This is the second time that you have tried this.  As I said last time , these should not be deleted without discussing with the bot operators. --After Midnight 0001 11:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Is the "Ready for deletion" section necessary? I assume that it was added at a time when non-admins could edit this page, but it doesn't seem useful now that the page has been fully protected. Anyone with the ability to move an entry to that section could just as easily delete an emptied category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what it was for.  I'd say leave it in case it ever becomes unprotected, but then again, we have so many bots doing the depopulation that it probably isn't necessary.  --Kbdank71 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for deletion 

message: All of the moves/merges left from Dec 1 just need null edits.  Are there any bots that are around to help out?  --Kbdank71 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any bots available for null edits? 

message: Perhaps I'm being a thickie - wouldn't be the first time - but I don't see how to check for speedy deletions of empty categories that they've been empty for four days like WP:CSD#C1 says. Can someone clue me in? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is one.  At least, in the several years I've been doing CFD, I've never been able to find a way.  Unless you know what articles were in the category prior to being emptied, then you can check the history of the article, or if you know who did the emptying, and you can check their contribs.  Those are both long-shots at best, though.  I usually stay away from CSD C1.  If I find an empty category, I just nominate it at CFD.  If I'm closing and a category makes it through CFD and it was nominated as being empty, that's your four days.  If it was emptied while the discussion was on-going, the regulars are good enough to notice this and say something. --Kbdank71 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that was going to be the answer. Thanks, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Handling CSD C1

message: Anyone know if we are having a bot strike? There appears to be a growing workload of moves and renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: poke cyde. βcommand 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll be doing some of the work with User:PbBot -- pb30<talk> 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot strike? 

message: The last move from Jan 27 still needs to be completed.  I poked Cyde as his bot seems to have taken care of alot of CFD moves lately, but he made a change recently to his talk page to the effect that he isn't around as much anymore.  Can someone take care of that last category with a bot or AWB?  For some reason, AWB doesn't work for me anymore, and I can't get a bot to work from behind my work proxy.  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone have an idle bot? (or a working copy of AWB?) 

message: I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on the date subheadings that are currently being used to link to the per-day CFD discussions.  Up until today they were mandatory because Cydebot relied on them to generate the proper link in its edit summaries (and if the subheadings were wrong or missing, that caused problems).  But I rewrote Cydebot in Python today to take better advantage of PyWikipediaBot and it's now harvesting the per-day CFD discussion links directly from the CFD templates on the relevant categories.  This is definitely more foolproof (assuming the CFD templates are always used on the relevant categories, anyway; is this mostly the case?), although it does still use the day subheadings as a fallback.
So my question is, should we keep the day subheadings in the standard listing format, or should we get rid of them?  I'm mostly ambivalent either way.  Are they a useful aide to the people updating this working page, or are they more of a hassle to deal with than anything else?  Your input, please.  --Cyde Weys 03:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I can think of to keep the dates is that sometimes, when we have a category populated by template, we need to wait a while if the job queue is high. It's a reminder to check whether the category is being depopulated and, if it seems to be stubborn, to check that something hasn't been missed. We don't relist that many CfDs, so the chances of linking to the wrong day are pretty low. And even then, you can still find the right page from the what-links-here link. I could live just fine without the day links, if that's what people want, and I could live with them, if that's what's agreed. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: While it is an extra effort, I do think that they serve an informational purpose. (Especially for any NOBOT or manual results.) So I think I'd weakly oppose getting rid of them. - jc37 06:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the CFD per-day page is available as a link in the CFD template on the categories in question.  Not quite as convenient, mind you, but at least it's still accessible two clicks away.  But this is a good point — I hadn't really thought of human uses of the metadata implied in the date subheadings.  It sounds like there's not much of an argument to get rid of them?  --Cyde Weys 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date subheadings 

message: I'd like to, even tried to before I noticed that the page has been protected for over a year. If the page can be unprotected, can someone please unprotect it, otherwise edit the page to remove lines like "After a category is empty, editors may move the entry to Ready for deletion below."? Someone can move :Category:Proposed Sites for the United Nations Headquarters too. Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help keep this page clean! 

message: I added some functionality to Kbdankbot to deal with multi-merge targets.  Well, actually, two-merge targets.  So if you have some that need work and I don't see them, ping me.  --Kbdank71 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi merge targets 

message: # :Category:Christ Myth to :Category:Christ myth should be under deletion not move.  Everything has already been moved.  jbolden1517Talk 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. If in the speedy move section typically the bot will move anything left in it and then delete the old one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for doing the final step.  I wanted to do the move by hand because the category has some unusual text and I wasn't sure how the bot would respond.  In retrospect probably the smarter thing would have been to copy the text and just see what happened. jbolden1517Talk 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ myth 

message: This edit, by User:Cydebot says "Robot - Removing category Greek names per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28", but there is no listing of a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28 nor is there a posting on the deleted page :Category:Greek names indicating a CFD discussion anyplace. What is up? Jeepday (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thank you, Can the box be un-collapsed so others will be able to search and find named pages?  There is no benefit to hiding it now, and I found helpful suggestions for a better category once I was able to find the discussion. Jeepday (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's a good idea.  I'll try to remember to de-collapse the sections as I close discussions.  --Kbdank71 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *As will I. I'm sorry I didn't do so in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Greek names - deleted without CFD

message: The speedy renames of the "Foo Bar plays" to "Plays by Foo Bar" haven't been completed. The resulting categories are still tagged with the cfr-speedy template, see this search. Tassedethe (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an error that the bots created in the new categories after someone changed the Template:Cfr-speedy coding. A few hundred new categories were created without the bots deleting the template. The categories are fine, the template just needs deleted from them. I've cast out for some help here—surely there is a bot that could just remove these? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to remove a few then noticed there were quite a lot. A bot would certainly help; perhaps a posting at WP:BTR? Tassedethe (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Debresser took care of these himself. It's done now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plays by" changes not completed 

message: Does anyone know where Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Normal closure is supposed to point? The page just redirects to the CFD page, which has no such section. Jafeluv (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure section 

message: Looks like Cydebot is not running creating a backlog of work.  If any of the other bot operators see this, maybe they can deal with the backlog of work. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cydebot not running since nov 21 

message: :Category:Football (soccer) logos has been moved to :Category:Association football logos, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 5#Category:Association_football.  However it is stuck in the processing queue because it is populated by a template, or rather by a parameter to a template.
Currently it is , but this needs to be changed to .
About 1000 pages need to be changed, so I will lodge a request at WP:BOTREQ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Request made at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Bot_needed_to_change_template_parameter_for_football_logos. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot needed to move Category:Football (soccer) logos to Category:Association football logos 

message: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_22#Template:Ucfd_top
--Kbdank71 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCFD templates up for deletion 

message: At least, not usually. Cydebot doesn't seem to realize this, though. +Angr 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. A typo which has led to a big problem. I'll set to work on fixing these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss Americans are not of Syrian descent! 

message: I noticed recently that Cydebot did not check whether a move target was a category redirect, and proceeded as if it was a real category. This led in one situation to articles being recategorised in a redirect which pointed to a now-nonexistent category.
After discussing it with Od Mishehu, I asked  whether anything could be done about this, and he kindly got to work promptly on a fix. (see User talk:Cyde#It.27s_done)
I am just testing it with a pair of dummy categories, and we will see how it works.
If all is OK (as I'm sure it will be), this adds something else to look for if a category is not processed, viz. is the move target a redirect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The test worked fine. Cydebot will now skip a move or merge where the target category is a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cydebot and category redirects 

message: I think it might be useful to have a bot to help maintain the Working page. I know that Cyde Weys' bot, Cydebot, currently implements category changes, but it does not (to my knowledge) directly edit the Working page. There are a number of useful tasks a bot could perform—organizing entries, flagging potential issues (e.g., a category was deleted but is not empty, a category was deleted but has incoming links from a content namespace), and carrying out specialized instructions (e.g., recreate as a category redirect)—and it might simply be a matter of asking Cyde if he could add functionality to his bot, but we could start with the most routine ones:
# At the start of each day, add a link in the section 'Discussions awaiting closure' to the most-recently-overdue log page; and
# At the start of each new day, or perhaps on request (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old), calculate and list for each day's log page the number of open discussions.
Any thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: The code for MathBot, which does the same tasks at AfD, is available here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see this was added.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a bot to help maintain the Working page 

message: These were listed here by the same person who put them up at speedy despite a previous CfD saying No to endashes. . I think the previous CfD should have made them ineligible for Speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I told the bot to do it. Being discussed on my talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK MP cats 

message: One day last week, no regular closes were being processed for over a day since the bot was busy doing a huge number of speedy renames.  This happens when the categories being renamed affect large numbers of articles.  We have several of these types of renames pending at CfD.  Since they are not contentious nominations, we can expect them to be added in mass to the work queue.  Can I suggest that we release this type of category work to the bots slowly, so that new smaller work items can be processed.  Maybe include them with a NO BOTS flag and a simple note to add a few more after the previous ones have been processed?  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. I must apologise for the massive speedy rename work that I set the bot to do over the last week. I didn't anticipate that it would take so long, but it did take a very long time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large impact closes 

message: Do we need a separate section on this page where we can park renames/deletes where we are "waiting for the template to reset" so that the change can be completed? These are again seeming to take a very long time—well over a week for a category with over 100 articles. Or are we happy just keeping these listed in the normal sections? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support such a section, but I'm more inclined to make it at WP:CFDWM. The pages remain in these categories until the pages are edited, which is why the counts slowly declined from day to day, if at all. I forced all the pages in  to purge by clicking the edit tab and just saved the page, even though no changed were made, nor does it count as an edit. I figured out this method just a few minutes ago, which makes me wish I'd known about this before making edits like this, but oh well. — ξxplicit 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is :Wikipedia:CFDWM#Templates removed or updated - deletion pending automatic emptying of category which has fallen into disuse.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so there is a section at CFDWM—I suppose we can move them there if needed. I don't think we have to wait for the pages to be actually edited—though if an actual edit or null edit occurs, it does reset it immediately. For the rest, they are added to a reset queue, which is apparently very, very long. A few months ago Kbdank71 did some tests and I think figured that at that time the reset queue took about 3 weeks to go through a cycle. That's crazy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How odd, I've edited CFDWM a couple of times, but somehow never noticed that section. Three weeks is quite a while. I don't mind doing my simple but time-consuming method when I have spare time.  — ξxplicit 22:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I moved them over there.  I'm going to update the instructions to add a subst of the date for this type of chnage so that we can see when how long it actually is taking. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Section for "waiting for template" issues

message: Can one of the regulars make sure I did this correctly?  Thanks. --Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, you broke it! Just kidding, you're doing fine. Welcome to the club.  — ξxplicit 05:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm trying not to do anything controversial for a while. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Please, be controversial! Then I could take a break for awhile! Seriously, congratulations. Any possible help at closing CFDs is always welcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check the new sysop 

message: Cydebot deleted the above category with the rationale "per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23#Category:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame.Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23#Category:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame" but I can find no mention of this category ever having been discussed, and it does not appear to have been clearly roped in by the discussion of Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame. For context, see this request for undeletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot deleted again and started removing the category from all associated article. I have blocked and will go talk to its master directly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The category was added by  under WP:CSD#G4 as the category is serving an identical purpose. Cydebot emptied and deleted it a second time because the category was still listed at WP:CFDW. It has since been removed and Cydebot will no longer touch that category, so I've unblocked it as it still has work to do. — ξxplicit 02:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad the circle was stopped and the block was of short duration. Regarding the category serving an identical purpose, it might be that if this was specifically discussed, the conclusion would be that it was roped in under the same arguments, but it's not clearly so. Multiple arguments made at the discussion are distinguishable when applied to a fictional character. For example, a fictional character does not receive many awards during their life, while, as argued at the discussion, a notable person does; another argument was that anyone can get a star for a $2500 fee; this may not be true for fictional characters. I do not think this can be simply asserted to be identical without discussion (which does not mean I think it would or should ultimately be kept).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I think it's safe to say it won't be speedily deleted. I've notified Good Olfactory of this discussion and we'll see where it goes from there—probably a full nominated of the category. — ξxplicit 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugg. I didn't notice the category had been created recently (which is why I was actually looking for it being specifically debated at a CfD discussion that predates its creation). I'll go nominate it now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, here's the nomination.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't do what we all do with breaking eggs sometimes. If I could do it over I would remove the category from the associated page, and would have dropped a message on your talk page about the undeletion request, but I was clueless as to the existence of this page given my lack of familiarity with CfD processes so did not know how the deletion was implemented by the bot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame]] 

message: Just saw this on my watchlist, where the bot, as a result of this discussion introduced an incorrect category. This is a rename that needs to be done manually.  DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed cat not appropriate for bot to do. 

message: I noticed a quirk in Cydebot's editing today. When the bot removes a category, it leaves behind an extra line (see ). I have notified Cyde about the issue (here) and added, in the 'Empty then delete' section, a note asking closers to list all category removal tasks for manual handling (i.e., "NO BOTS"). This may, temporarily, impose a burden on the process, but we can probably make do with AWB or, better yet, a replacement bot. I am posting here both to explain and to make sure that there is consensus for (or, at least, no objection to) this action. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has been going on for quite a while. I don't believe that the issue is a reason to manually do the edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the issue is minor, it can be a cause of some confusion. For example, seeing a blank line in the middle of a category list made me wonder whether it is there due to vandalism or misguided recategorization. I did not suspect a bot until I actually located the relevant diffs.Would you be opposed to trying manual removal for a while? Most category tasks at CFDW involve renaming and merging, which would continue unaffected, and I think that the comparatively small number of deletions could be handled via a semi-automated tool (it's quite possible to reach 30 edits per minute with AWB); of course , I would 'put my money where my mouth is', so to speak, and work to carry out deletion tasks. If a backlog develops, then we could drop the "NO BOTS" tags and allow Cydebot to resume working on category removal. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are making this into something larger then it needs to be.  If you want to do them manually, you can.  This may be an easy fix for Cyde once he becomes aware of the issue.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that Cyde edits only occasionally, so it may take a while for him to notice the post (though any fix that he applies will not apply retroactively). I will understand if someone removes the notice (after all, I did add it before any discussion), but I believe that temporarily handling category removal tasks with semi-automated tools will not pose a significant burden. Again, if it proves to be a hassle or a backlog forms, we can always turn Cydebot loose on the backlog. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I have Cyde's email so I will send him a message; he's usually very prompt if he is emailed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks! And thanks to Cyde for checking on this. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Everything looks to be in order now, though I'll keep a watch for any odd edits over the next few days. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cydebot not removing spaces 

message: For category renames, Cydebot seems to be leaving the invisible part of the Cfr template on the new category page. See, e.g., , , . It's not affecting how the categories appear, of course, but it's a little bit junky for anyone who comes along to edit the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you used , as opposed to directly inserting the code yourself? In the revision where you tagged the old category for renaming, I don't see the  line, which clues in the bot that these comment lines are part of the CfD process tag. It otherwise recongizes just the template, which I see it did, in fact, remove when copying the categories over. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that must be it. A bit odd, as I always use the "subst:", but something must have gone wrong with these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cydebot leaving junk text

message: There is a six-week old discussion on British alumni categories here, and a similar one about Australia here. No one seems to want to close them, especially since many of the people who might close them are involved in the discussion (me, for example). The discussions are not at consensus, and contain much sniping and griping. There are two camps: people who defend the "Old (X)ans" format and those who want some other non-jargon format, though they don't always agree on which they would prefer. The 400+ category names use quite a few different formats. I can see a few possible outcomes:
#Someone decides that the "Old (X)ans" people are right, and leaves those categories alone. He or she then decides that all the rest of the categories should be renamed to one standard, such as "People educated at" or "Alumni of", and renames those that need to change.
#Someone decides that the "Old (X)ans" people are right, and leaves those categories alone. He or she then decides that for the remaining categories there should be consistency, but that there's no consensus between "People educated at" or "Alumni of," and relists just those categories for a single standard.
#Someone decides that the "Alumni"/"People educated at" people are right, picks one format to rename everything to, and renames them.
#Someone decides that the "Alumni"/"People educated at" people are right, and renominates everything for renaming for a simple decision between the non-jargon options, noting that votes for "Old (X)ans" formats will be ignored.
#Someone decides that there is truly no consensus, and doesn't change anything in their close.
#No one decides anything, and the nominations never get closed.
6 seems intolerable, so I hope someone is willing to step up and make the decision. Since any choice involves some categories not getting changed, there may need to be a bot to help remove tags. Note that this post is not on the merits of the arguments, and I really hope no one decides to make this a separate discussion of those arguments. This is just to figure out how the discussions get closed, and what happens then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  closing the UK and Australia alumni discussions 

message: I've finally gotten around to the Retain CFD bot, the details for which are here (skip to the bottom for the relevant details).  This should help you CFD closers out with discussions whose result is "Keep", especially when a large number of categories were involved in a single discussion.  As always, keep me updated of any issues with the new bot via my talk page.  Note that it's still very much in testing, a "We'll Do It Live" style of development if you will.  --Cyde Weys 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retain CFD bot 

message: ; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19
* :Category:Client states of the Great French War to :Category:Client states of the Napoleonic Wars
I can't locate the template that populates the former category - my best guess is this is embedded in infoboxes. Is there any way we can ban categorising via such convoluted mechanisms? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to find the template to fix it but these types of category are getting annoying. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another template mess 

message: ; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 29
* :Category:User archives
* :Category:Talk archives
Both the above appear to be populated by incredibly convoluted syntax that needs to be identified by someone who understands the more intricate codes and removed from each talkpage one by one. Does anyone have any ideas how to go about this? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total mess categories 

message: :Category:Short-lived states seems to be populated by a template.  I tried to find which one without any luck.  Can someone else look into this? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it! It's generated by the infobox. See the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_former_country/Archive_3#Usage for Republic of Texas. I don't play with templates, so have no idea how to go about changing it, but that's where it's coming from. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit should do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Short-lived states 

message: We have another massive backlog on CFD/Working, just like we had last month. I believe that this would be less likely to occur if non-admins could edit Working. Does anyone agree with me on that front?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And then a vandal account posts a request to rename :Category:Government to :Category:Penis. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text: As I recall, the page was protected when it was discovered that anyone could add a merge or a delete for the bot to process.  This would generally not be detected until after the fact leaving a big mess to cleanup.  If the question is the ability to close a discussion, then it could be addressed adding a section to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, say Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual/Non admin adds, where the bot work can be listed by any editor and then moved by an admin to the protected page to allow the bot to do the work.  So more editors would be able to do closes and we would still have admin review on feeding the bot. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotecting this page 

message: Regarding the recent backlogs—I think those who close discussions should not be shy about closing a discussion if it's been open for a one or more weeks and it has no comments apart from the nominator's statement. If there are no objections to a proposal, I think it should just be implemented. It can always be discussed again if there are objections post-implementation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the backlogs

message: Please move </noinclude> before ===Discussions awaiting closure=== after it. Every relevant pages, where this page is transcluded, has already a "Discussions awaiting closure" header.
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 06:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 22 January 2012 

message: Cydebot is screwing up all the categorizations when it's renaming these cats. The new cats don't have the categorization the old cats did, so all this work is going to have to be done by hand if the bot can't transfer the cats over, too. Is the bot going to be doing this, or should we start slogging through the categories by hand and fixing this oversight? Sorry if I sound frustrated, but we're having to fix a template and do all this by hand if the bot isn't going to do it. The project wasn't even notified of this CfD discussion, and neither were those who originally created the categories and set everything up for the categorization, so I hope you can understand why we're a little frustrated at the moment. I'm not trying to take it out on you as your bot does good work.  ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it looks like I may have caught the bot inbetween things as I can see some of the cats have been transferred to the cat pages. That's a load off my mind. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The renamed categories initially lacked their parent categories because they're automatically populated by that template, not by entries in the individual categories. The bot changes the latter but not the former so I tried to change the template but it is exceptionally complicated, constructing the categories on the basis of the category name. Once the template was properly amended the new categories were automatically populated accordingly. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime/Manga by year categories 

message: I noticed that Cydebot has stopped deleting categories it processes when the target category is a bluelink (it still does so on renamings when the target was a redlink). Any idea what's up with that? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember it ever doing it in the first place. What I think we need is to adjust the main CFD template to include a link for admins to delete a category with an auto generated edit summary. There's just such a feature on the speedy template and it's very useful for merges or when not all the contents get moved on the first pass. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to do it all the time, as far as I could tell. But yeah, that sounds like a good idea. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cydebot issue? 

message: Could those who process speedy nominations please remember the following?—for category changes where we convert a hyphen to an endash, we need to re-create the original category (the one with the hyphen) as a soft category redirect to the new category (the one with the endash). These finishing touches have been getting overlooked lately, and some users have been experiencing difficulties in category accessibility. The redirects are intended to help that issue, especially for those users who use hotcat. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we move from one en-dashed name to another? e.g. Chinese aircraft by decade. The original hyphenated redirects to the old en-dashed names need deleting, but should we create new redirect pages at the hyphenated names corresponding to the new category names? e.g. :Category:Chinese attack aircraft 1990-1999 for :Category:Chinese attack aircraft 1990–1999? – Fayenatic London 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to have the redirects would be ideal, but I wouldn't say we must create them all if it's a big job. We do what we can, I suppose—if we remember to at least do it at the time of renaming for the ones that are originally created with hyphens, at least we're doing the ones most likely to be needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I noticed yesterday that Armbrust created a lot of them using AWB.  Credit where credit's due! – Fayenatic London 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy processing issue: remember the hyphen issue, please!

message: AvicBot is now approved to help Cydebot out if it gets backlogged. Simply change this page to 'enable' to have AvicBot help out. He will check the page once an hour, and start processing CFD/W The same way Cydebot does. Instructions are in the editnotice. I hope this helps with any backlogs that might arise. Avicennasis @ 05:31, 7 Tamuz 5772 / 05:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks for doing this! (And I've just enabled AvicBot 11 as Cydebot is fritzing...) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

text: AvicBot's trying to chug along - it keeps pausing because of server lag; this might also be why Cydebot is fritzing. Avicennasis @ 05:07, 10 Tamuz 5772 / 05:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it moved one and stopped. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I killed the rest of it's Cronjobs - it's moving along now. Avicennasis @ 05:28, 10 Tamuz 5772 / 05:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good plan to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try to tweak the delete message to create the proper summary - I'll work on that today. As for AvicBot becoming an Adminbot - I'm afraid, if I'm reading WP:ADMINBOT properly, that AvicBot's not eligible. Perhaps someday, though.  Avicennasis @ 23:42, 12 Tamuz 5772 / 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me to.  I'm not familiar with the bot rules, but if this is an issue, a note here would gather support if needed.  Not trying to vote stack with this request, but just pointing out that a lot of admins don't feel the need to have to cleanup when a bot does not have the proper authorities.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Bot 

message: Can someone add "Category:Spertus College alumni to Category:Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies alumni" to the "Speedy moves" section? The category was removed from CFDS by The Bushranger in this edit, but by mistake it wasn't included at the time he added it to CFDW.
Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 07:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 23 July 2012 

message: ...and has been for nearly 12 hours. So I'm going to enable AvicBot until it comes back up.
:And I see I've been beaten to it! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...except AvicBot doesn't seem to be doing the CfD stuff. Hm. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - there was data crash, and the automated backup restored some files that were out of date. This should be corrected shortly. Avicennasis @ 13:32, 10 Tishrei 5773 / 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   Avicennasis @ 13:37, 10 Tishrei 5773 / 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cydebot is down... 

message: ::...except AvicBot doesn't seem to be doing the CfD stuff. Hm. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - there was data crash, and the automated backup restored some files that were out of date. This should be corrected shortly. Avicennasis @ 13:32, 10 Tishrei 5773 / 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   Avicennasis @ 13:37, 10 Tishrei 5773 / 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AvicBot down too? 

message: ; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 1
* NO BOTS :Category:Recipients of the Croix de guerre 1914–1918 (France) to :Category:Recipients of the Croix de Guerre 1914–1918 (France)
Is there a reason this is marked as no bots? It seems fairly straightforward and I didn't see anything in the discussion which would require human intervention. Legoktm (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No bots entry? 

message: ClydeBot yesterday moved the categories :Category:Adele songs and :Category:Adele albums to :Category:Adele (singer) songs and :Category:Adele (singer) albums respectively. Leaving aside the fact I feel it was unnecessary since we don't have to categorise albums by another singer of the same name, I do think some category redirects should have been created in its wake. I've created the category redirects for the two I've mentioned above, but think that if we are to have sudden moves like this it would be very useful to be redirected to the new name.Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category redirects 

message: User:CrimsonBot also helps in this area and should be added to the list of bots. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CrimsonBot
CrimsonBlue (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CrimsonBot is failing to delete the categories it renames under the speedy section. This is not good because it means it has to be done manually. :User:Cydebot deletes it and leaves a reference to the new category in the summary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pages will be automatically deleted the next time User:Cydebot runs all it will have to do is delete the pages, so if you leave them they will get deleted CrimsonBlue (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, Cydebot seems to have trouble deleting empty categories that have been renamed (unless it was the one that emptied it), but I'll take your word for it that it would happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the target category is a bluelink, Cydebot does not delete the 'from' category. Annoying, but that's the way it is... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Oh—the original point—I had made the requested edit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 8 January 2013 

message: What if we took WP:CFDW#To be emptied or moved and split that off into its own subpage?  That way we could full protect it (which it needs, per discussion above, since editing it causes bots to delete things) and not protect the rest of the page, e.g. Discussions awaiting closure.  That way non-admins could help out with those sections, which they might need to do if they do non-admin closures, or just notice that the section needs to be updated, or whatever.  delldot ∇. 06:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAICS, the only section which would benefit from regular access by non-admins is Discussions awaiting closure. It would be best to move that section to an unprotected subpage. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into subpages to minimize full protection? 

message: as CydeBot seems to have stepped out for a margarita. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just turned on Legobot as well. Legoktm (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cydebot is back up, so I've disabled the AvicBot CFDW function. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AvicBot enabled 

message: WHO put the Anosy categories in that list????
Sample:
Category:Anosy to Category:Anosy Region
Category:People from Anosy to Category:People from Anosy Region
There are no 2 Anosy in the world - there is absolutely NO need for precision on these categories.
As I do 80-90% on the articles on that region of the world (Madagascar) - and I am NOT READY to type each time a lifelong list of cats.  
and more : I REFUSE THAT ANY BOTLIKE FUNCTIONING ADMINS THAT EVEN DONT KNOW WHAT OR WHERE THIS IT IS FUCK INTO MY WORK.
Who the hell was it,  is it.  Do you want to drive me out???
How to set this back?  Damn.
Tonton Bernardo (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now being discussed at my talk page, since I am the admin who added the rename in question to this work queue and thus was the one "fuck[ing] into [the user's] work". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who put Anosy here? 

message: I have worked on the backlog getting us down to only 1 discussion open from April.  Can someone look at that and see if it can be closed? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  April down to one open 

message: We still have discussions open from as far back as May 10!  Also there is a significant number, and growing percentage, of discussions that I can not close since I am an involved party.  We really need a few more admins to participate.  Yes I know that I am not the only one working on this, but more involvement is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing backlog 

message: We really could use :User:Cydebot these days. Could someone else try emailing :User:Cyde? (He has an "email this user" link on his page.) In the past, I've let him know via email and he has fixed things relatively quick. I've already contacted him 4 times this month—each time he replies and says it's fixed, but Cydebot still isn't processing categories. I don't want to pester him for a 5th time—maybe if another user contacts him he will realize that it's not just me thinking it's broken. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a Toolserver issue, which Cyde can't fix. The bot breaks to recategorise pages, but it works perfectly to create the new categories. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it even creating new categories? Not since 14 Sep, according to this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean recategorising pages is the source of the problem. For example on 12 September it created many new categories in a row. Every category was emptied already at that time by my bot. On 14 September it created , but than couldn't recategorise the contents of the page and it's CFD function is on a hiatus since then. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we could get the category creation functions up and running, it would help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing it broke during the HTTPS switchover. I can get Legobot running using Cyde's code if that would be helpful. Legoktm (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, it's another example of the foundation not considering the negative impact of their changes.  They seem bent on a series of changes, that on the surface, seem intended on pissing off existing editors with no obvious advantage.  This is compounded by their lack of any desire to communicate any of these changes to existing editors.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cydebot (2013)