Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 8

message: Would there be consensus to allow a bot to automatically scan :Category:Protected deleted categories and update articles to remove any entries for these categories?  See :Category:Socialist Wikipedians for an example of what happens today.  Vegaswikian 08:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  --Kbdank71 10:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. (Though that category may not be the best example, since it was deleted by fiat and there are categories for just about every other political viewpoint.) - EurekaLott 10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well right now there are only 4 so not many examples. The other one with entries is :Category:Anti-heroes.  So how can we make this happen?  Does this have to be adopted as a guideline or can it just follow the bot process? Vegaswikian 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put in a request at Wikipedia talk:Bots. We'll see what happens. - EurekaLott 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected category after consensus to delete 

message: Recently, these categories were created:
*:Category:Chronicles of Oklahoma citations
*:Category:Kappler's Indian Affairs citations
Superficially, these look like other entries in :Category:Wikipedia sources, except the other entries are usually categories which collect articles originally copied from certain public domain sources. These new categories are just articles which happen to cite, however briefly, a certain source. That's a recipe for creating dozens of large but essentially useless categories. How about :Category:Webster's Dictionary citations, or mabye :Category:Wikipedia articles which mention the Bible? Stop the madness now! • Kevin (complaints?) 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These these two categories are a part of :Category:Digital libraries linked through :Category:Oklahoma State University Library Electronic Publishing Center. If you want to clarify the use of :Category:Wikipedia sources, maybe you could write the main article for Wikipedia sources or at least add something to Category talk:Wikipedia sources. See also :Category:Handbook of Texas citations. DeepFork 15:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category cruft: "Citations" categories 

message: Longest category title ever? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Words which have got new meanings by people misunderstanding unexplained usage]] 

message: This was crossposted to many pages. Please discuss at [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_23#Informing_the_creators_is_being_ignored
]]. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. --Kbdank71 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: Isn't it slightly confusing to have two pages listing closures in progress: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working as it means closers have to update two pages as they go through the daily CFDs? Tim! 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was so the bots can go through the "normal" cfd's without choking on the user categories.  I personally think it's a good idea.  The user cats are such a PITA with all of the unknown templates and subst'ing going on, I'd rather just dump them at /user and forget about it.  --Kbdank71 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it make sense to transclude working/user into the working page? That way we should be able to avoid the duplicate overhead issues and still address the bot problem. - EurekaLott 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a moot point now, as Radiant has moved the discussions themselves to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion.  As such, I suppose we can treat the user cats as just another xFD process (UCFD?).  --Kbdank71 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two working pages 

message: I thought long and hard about this and I think I have come up with a solution.  Obviously there's significant support for having the CFD templates substituted, and I guess I can see the reasoning behind it.  It's consistent with the other parts of the process and it allows categories to be made on a per-montly basis that make it easy to notice and clear up orphaned, unresolved, or forgotten nominations.  I had originally opposed this because it broke the behavior of pyWikipediaBot, but I have come up with a solution that should not be too hard to implement on the bot end that will allow us to substitute the CFD templates.  Barring any objections, I suggest that we implement this as quickly as possible.
#Identify all of the CFD templates.  As far as I am aware we have the following six templates: 'cfd', 'cfr', 'cfru', 'cfr-speedy', 'cfm', and 'cfdu'.  We also have three templates with a "1" after them that are designed to be substituted.  These should be deleted as they will no longer be necessary, since the substitution behavior will be merged into the versions of the templates without the 1 tacked on the end.
#Modify all of the CFD templates such that the first line that they insert upon substitution (not necessarily in the template code itself) is  and the last line upon substitution is .
#I will modify pyWikipediaBot such that it snips all of the text between these two comments (including the comments itself) when moving over category text, rather than merely removing the unsubsted  or whatever.
#All of the CFD templates should be modified to include code that requires their substitution and adds in a per-month CFD category (this was already done before, so it will be as simple as reverting to them, I think).
#I will go through and substitute all of the CFD templates.
And that should be it.  Are there any objections?  If not, I'd like to get started as soon as possible.  Thank you.  --Cyde Weys 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  However, I'm wondering if we need the cfru and cfdu templates.  The cfr1 and cfd1 have umbrella functionality built into them.  We should look into seeing if we can do that with the cfr and cfd templates also.  That'll reduce the number of templates to four.  Granted, that's something that can be implemented at a later date, if we want to get up and running fast.  --Kbdank71 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine.  I'm not convinced that six are necessary anyway, and the smaller we get the number down to the better (and the easier the explanation of the process on CFD is).  The number doesn't even particularly matter to me; as long as all of their substitutions begin and end with the comments I have suggested, they should work automagically.  --Cyde Weys 17:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I was starting some work towards developing a new template which would be 'cfd-speedy' per Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposal:CSD C1.  I was early in the process and I put it on hold when the issue of substitution possibly being a problem was raised.  Once this is done, I'll get back to that and model it on whatever changes are made to 'cfd' and 'cfr-speedy'.  I'm still new with templates, so I will probably look for some help or at least error checking.  Also, I imagine that the discussion may still need to be had to officially modify CSD C1 (or can this just be done boldly?). --After Midnight 0001 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, a brilliant solution—run with it, and thanks for your work on this.—Chidom talk  19:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops, totally forgot about this.  I'll start working on it today.  Would you be able to contact via talk page, the owners of the bots listed at CFD/W, and let them know about this discussion?  I don't know who else would need to modify their bots in order for this to work.  (good to see you back, btw)  --Kbdank71 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, cfr-speedy and cfd are complete.  You have to subst them, they both have the "BEGIN/END CFD TEMPLATE" as noted above, and all categories that were tagged with cfd have been subst'ed.  Also, cfdu has been redirected to cfd, since it isn't needed any longer, and all cats that were tagged with cfdu have been substed with cfd.  So far so good.  I'll continue with the remainder as I can.  --Kbdank71 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: cfm is done.  Starting on cfr and cfru.  --Kbdank71 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's how we can handle CFD template substitution 

message: Whether here or elsewhere, the policy regarding deleting subcategories of nominated categories needs to be specifically spelled out. What is listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Procedure III. is not clear enough; it says to list the subcategories (though even that is not really clear); nowhere is it stated that all subcategories need the  tag added on their pages as well. My personal opinion is that requiring the  tag to be placed on every subcategory page will discourage or preclude categories with massive numbers of subcats from being nominated for deletion. (Again, see :Category:Fauna by country and its discussion page.) I added the tag on 133 subcategory pages. Since I don't know how to write bots, this was largely done by hand. I do have the advantage of a macro program that helped somewhat, but it was still an onerous manual task. I have posted this comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:Category deletion policy as well.—Chidom talk  19:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  See Section 2  under umbrella nomination.  --Kbdank71 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As for precluding massive numbers of categories from being nominated, I honestly don't think that's as important as keeping people informed.  There are many people who don't visit CFD regularly.  Those people would never know of hundreds of categories that were about to be deleted.  --Kbdank71 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at it this way:  Tag every category you want to nominate.  It's that simple.  --Kbdank71 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or this way, if we were having a discussion about deleting your own user and talk pages, wouldn't you want to know, so you could make your opinion known?  And what if we let you know by placing a notice on MY talk page that we're going to delete yours.  Would you consider that as an adequate warning?  We have to tag every category nominated because we don't know who is regularly looking at what.  --Kbdank71 19:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clarify the text - does this help? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategory procedure 

message: Radiant unilterally moved the user discussions to CFDU. At the time (even though I'd proposed it) I thought it was a bad idea to just swap discussions to a new page without all the template architecture, but Radiant acted boldly, and he's an administrator, and so on. Well, now, after a lot of manual work to delete all the food template category tags, someone has relisted the debate on Wikipedia:Deletion_review on the very basis that the templates were not updated. And so now I know Radiant's unilateral move was a bad idea. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the effect of the CFDU move 

message: Am I the only one working this page these days? — xaosflux Talk 03:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly.  Move them to WP:CFD/W and let the bots do them, if you want.  --Kbdank71 13:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, but I've been busy!  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CFDS]] 

message: Please may I delete some s that we would obviously delete if they came up for speedy renaming at CFDS?  I mean ones like :Category:Amusement Parks, :Category:Anime Conventions, :Category:Assyrian Settlements, :Category:Blue Cheeses?  You get the idea…  Also, what is the feeling about category redirects that are unlikely to be typed in (such as :Category:Articles whose titles are initialed a lowercase letter and :Category:Coastal bassins of the Gulf of Lion).  The number of such redirects is growing (partly because I keep finding #redirects in the category namespace) and unlike #redirects they are not cheap, so I am trying to cut down on the number of egregiously useless categories my bot has to trawl through!  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't get an argument from me.  I've often thought that we use cat redirects far too often.  I'll try to keep this in mind when closing CFD's in the future.   --Kbdank71 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me, too. However, I do think it's important to keep the category redirects to names that can't be typed in standard English, like :Category:Maori. - EurekaLott 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree; I also think differences between US and commonwealth spellings are appropriate, but not typos or spelling errors.  I am also pragmatic: if a category often has articles inadvertantly put into it (as :Category:Living People does) then it can stay!  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this will help at all, but when NekoDaemon handled category redirects, for security reasons, it would honor only the templates placed by administrators. Would that make the load a little lighter? - EurekaLott 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would lighten the load, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate.  I see no reason why any user should not create a valid category redirect, and I don't intend to go through all the existing cat redirects not created by admins and do a null edit on every one just to make them work!  If it sets your mind at rest, I have minimised the potential for mischief by making the bot ignore for one run any new cat redirects that it didn't encounter last time; this will give us a chance to investigate any that look odd before the robot implements them.  It will log them at its exceptions log.  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of what led to NekoDaemon's security policy, but I expect it was to prevent malicious category redirects. The exceptions log should have a similar impact. I'll try to keep an eye on it and help out when I can. How often do you run the bot? - EurekaLott 19:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really be more specific than "every so often"!  If I run it during the day I tend to check its log before I run it again.  Currently about once a week or less I do let it run unattended overnight; if you see its log change about 1 am then it was an unattended run.  If you do check up on new cat redirects and find they are ok, can you please remove them from the bot's log with an edit summary saying what you've done, to avoid duplicated effort?!  Thanks for the offer of help.  Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission 

message: The instructions for this process are needlessly long and complex. Someone who is familiar with CfD please fix them. —Centrx→talk • 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long instructions 

message: If someone nominates a category for renaming ('cat a' rename to 'cat b'), what happens when many editors instead say 'delete cat a'?  Since the original proposal was 'rename' and many editors may not have taken the opportunity comment and/or think about the subject except in the context of 'renmaing', can/should the result be 'delete'?  It seens to me that such a result would be a hijack of the 'categories for discussion' process.  Thanks Hmains 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly cases where a proposal to rename results in a decision to delete.  Fortunately, the admins who close these discussions almost all tend to work this page regularly, and they do not use simple vote counts, but look at the merit of the arguments and consensus that forms, so they usually do the right thing.  Also, there are generally enough people watching the pages that inappropriate delete comments will generally be met with sufficient reasons to keep with the rename.  If the admin feels it is appropriate, they can also choose to either close with no consensus or to relist.  Or course, if all else fails, you can contact the admin on their talk page and there is always the DRV process to fall back on. --After Midnight 0001 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Midnight's right. However, he fails to mention that deletion as the result of renaming request isn't always unjust. BTW, don't say "Thanks" in advance...kinda annoying. Anyway, voting-esq methods are a last resort used only in extreme cases (which usually require at least some admin help). The object is to come an acceptable decision based on the the feeling or spirit of the majority. It is not against any policy I know of to choose an option which was not given. If it is believed that a category, page or anything else would be better off deleted than renamed, and a good argument is made, the decision should be honored. What would be unfair is ignoring users who make a good point when stating that something should be deleted. "Voting outside the box" is relative. I'm sorry if your category was deleted, but it's a bit unrealistic to feel wronged if the reasons for deletion were sound. I mean, in cases like that, it was bound to be deleted one way or another. That's no hijacking, it's just...something that happens. And as for making a comment, that's not a requirement. All it takes is one good argument. Everyone can just agree and vote "delete per". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename vs delete  

message: Hi, what's the correct spelling of Businesspeople? One word or two words. See :Category:Businesspeople by nationality where it's sometimes one and sometimes two words. Or is it one of those American vs British language differences? I'd like to know before when or if I put them up for renaming. Garion96 (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct spelling would be one word; it's the genderless alternative to "businessmen" which is likewise one word. Dugwiki 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably either, but I'd go with "businesspeople" as "businessman" and "businesswoman" already in use (without as well as within Wikipedia). Thought before internet search: I wonder if anyone studied the history of what seems to be this inevitable melding of words... (e.g. "business man" → "business(-)man" → "businessman"; "south east" → "south-east" → "southeast"; etc. I imagine the internet is probably accelerating the process...?)   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for checking. I put them up for renaming here. Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Businesspeople vs Business people 

message: Is it :Category:Foo images or :Category:Images of foo?  Vegaswikian 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were to guess, I'd say :Category:Images of foo.   --Kbdank71 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded, as more difficulties with adjectivals etc avoided. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a policy or guideline proposal, I support "Images of [F|f]oo" 132.205.44.134 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image cats 

message: 'Delete', 'rename', or 'keep' are actions to be taken as a result of a discussion.  'No consensus', on the other hand is not an action, but a discussion result.  Instead, should a 'no consensus' discussion result in a 'keep' decision?   Some editors/admins seem to take 'no consensus' to mean they can do anything they want on their own, like effectively delete the category by removing all links to it.  Hmains 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does 'no consensus' mean? 

message: I believe :Category:World cities is a recent recreation of a deleted category. I don't know much about how that works; especially, I don't know where the old discussion would be found. Would someone who is more up on this please look into this? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation of deleted category 

message: I was just looking through :Category:The Gambia and noticing that half of the subs are in the form of xx The Gambia while the other half are in the form of xx the Gambia. While convention tells me that "The" should be lowercase, the fact that half of the articles are in Proper Case makes me think twice.
I'd nominate them for speedy rename, but I don't know which direction I should go (making it impossible to tag). What do you guys think? thadius856talk 05:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a couple of "...t/The Gambia" articles on WP:RM not so long ago and the consensus was "The Gambia" (i.e. capital case); I think the reason is that "The Gambia" not "Gambia" is the actual (English) name of the country. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with David.  The name of the country is "The Gambia", so it should be capitalized.  --Kbdank71 12:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS I'd catalog/ue it as "Gambia, The". David (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization in countries [of "t/The Gambia"] 

message: Anyone else reckon categories such as :Category:German World War II people – i.e. categories using the format above – might better be described using the format Category:Nationality people of Conflict (as in :Category:German people of World War II)...?   My thinking is that description by nationality seems more fundamental (more generally applicable) than description by conflict...  Thanks in advance for any thoughts, David Kernow (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:''Nationality'' ''Conflict'' people 

message: CATEGORIES
Medical genetics ‎(11 members) 
Medical genetics WikiProject participants ‎(12 members) 
Medical genetics articles by quality ‎(10 members) 
Medical genetics images ‎(12 members) 
MERGE THEM FOR ME.
--Endgame1 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP ME 

message: Some time ago I think these pages briefly became "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/..." before this path reverted to the former "for deletion" format. Can this inconsistency now be addressed more successfully...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd want to find out why they reverted back to "deletion" first.  --Kbdank71 13:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone with more insight...?  David (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They still are (though sometimes I get the odd redirect). Anyone ever find out what was going on? - jc37 06:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my proposal to fix this, come January 1. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Wikipedia:Categories for ''deletion''/Log/... 

message: These proposals were initially made at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 16 but have been moved here as conducive to further discussion. Hiding Talk 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored them to the CfD discussion. As suggested by some commentors, a modified proposal will likely be soon forthcoming either here or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). - jc37 11:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for new csd criteria for categories

message: I wanted to propose a category for deletion and thought it went in the Miscellany for Deletion area... Having already created the discussion page, added it to the log, etc. there, is there a way I can fix it to be in CFD? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd delete it / strike it out from the Miscellany for Deletion area (as proposer, probably leaving a brief explanation) then nominate it here. Hope that wouldn't contravene protocol. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oopsie. 

message: Tagged with  per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Polymaths.  That's fine, but what about all the subcategories - :Category:American polymaths, :Category:Ancient Greek polymaths, :Category:Belgian polymaths, :Category:British polymaths, :Category:Chilean polymaths, :Category:Chinese polymaths, :Category:Dutch polymaths, :Category:English polymaths, :Category:French polymaths, :Category:German polymaths, :Category:Indian polymaths, :Category:Italian polymaths, :Category:Polish polymaths, :Category:Russian polymaths, :Category:Scottish polymaths, and :Category:Spanish polymaths?  --RobertG ♬ talk 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the nomination, the subcats weren't nominated.  --Kbdank71 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now what will be done?  Sooner or later someone will see all the subcats and want to (re)-create the 'generic' category, right?  [see redirects discussion below] --RCEberwein | Talk 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polymaths 

message: I need to merge :Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia into :Category:Indigenous Australians. The two terms are exactly the same, but "Indigenous Australians" is both shorter and is the title of the main article: Indigenous Australians. I was going to do it myself, but I've never done this before and there's an extra complication: As of right now :Category:Indigenous Australians is a subcategory of :Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia. Can someone help me? Thanks, Sofeil 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: There are three admin-necessary things that I'd like help with on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User page:
# Deleting a whole bunch of empty categories in "Ready for deletion".
# Switching the Template:User instrument code as shown at the bottom of Template_talk:User_instrument page.
# Making a change on a protected user page (User:ForestH2/Userpage), changing :category:Wikipedians who play piano to :category:Wikipedian pianists, and :category:User guitar to :category:Wikipedian guitarists).
Anybody up for that?--Mike Selinker 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done 2 and 3.  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed that userbox from the page. You should ask the admin who blocked the user or who protected the page about deleting it, if you want to take that further.-gadfium 06:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking an admin's help 

message: How do you do this?? --SunStar Net 10:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming a category 

message: This page's directions are much more confusing than RM, and the automated processes produce at least two incorrect results. 
*There is a subheading called "If the category is a candidate for speedy renaming, use:" but no corresponding one called "If the category is not a candidate for speedy renaming, use:". As it stands, "If a single category:" is still part of the instructions for speedy deletion.
*After adding the code for renaming on the category's page and clicking Preview, this adds a template with the erroneous "add entry   " which does not go away even after i did as that says (so all future users who see that template think they are being addressed and told to add a new entry)
*Clicking on that link at "add entry" as well as on "Create the Cfd subsection. Click on THIS LINK" on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#How_to_use_this_page produces a project page with the erroneous heading "Editing Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 1 (section)" instead of "for discussion" --Espoo 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems that need fixing 

message: On about 22 October 2006 I submitted a Category renaming request using the correct method - "Category:Freshwater fish of New Zealand" → "Category:Endemic freshwater fish of New Zealand". The comments were building up but now the entry has disappeared - can anyone tell me what happened?  Ta GrahamBould 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was closed yesterday, and is archived at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 27#Category:Freshwater fish of New Zealand. - EurekaLott 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It was marked as no consensus, but the votes were all for either rename or create a new category within the current one. It would appear that everyone would have been happy with the latter solution, so could a bot be set to move the existing entries accordingly?-gadfium 05:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost request

message: Please help with Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Education_in_Ancient_Greece. Thanks! --Espoo 08:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with umbrella nomination 

message: I think its absurd that categories such as Surviving First World War veterans, survivors of silent films and Survivors of the 19th Century have just been nominated to be deleted because of the Living people policy.  Surely these should be exceptions.  Does anyone agree with me? Dovea 12:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion policy should be changed for living people extremes 

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) 15:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waxy Yellow Buildup 

message: Hi, i am searching for the deletion log of the categorie Dental laser, where can i find it ? reg .Mion 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental laser 

message: CFD regulars are invited to take a look at this new page, and reword it as necessary. The intent is to show both CFD precedent and simple guidelines for cats to avoid. (Radiant) 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like good guidelines overall. I have moved my specific comments on them to the talk page for these guidelines (seemed more appropriate to post them there than here). Dugwiki 19:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization]] 

message: We've converted :category:User writing systems to :category:Wikipedians by writing system, but for the life of me I have no idea how to move the contents. There is Template:User iso15924/category-intro, which somehow puts an associated category (e.g., :category:User Arab) into the :category:User writing systems. Can someone who knows something about templates look at this and figure out what to do to get it to send to :category:Wikipedians by writing system instead? Much appreciated.--Mike Selinker 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You already did this, with this edit.  I suspect the issue you're seeing is that changing the categorization code in the template does not affect the database entries for articles/cats already including the template, so they don't show up in the new category.  To get these updated you'll have to do a null edit on each of them (see Help:Category#Using templates to populate categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: an extremely thorny template

message: Currently, when one follows the renaming procedure one ends up on a categories for deletion page.  This is confusing.  Please change the code if possible. TonyTheTiger 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I didn't realize that before. The log pages are actually named that, so changing the code would not entirely solve it. -Amarkov blahedits 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was renamed "Categories for discussion" a while back so that all category discussions would happen in one place, and that includes renames. I believe there was a technical reason that the logs did not get renamed which has something to do with the bots that help us maintain things.  Perhaps a bot expert can comment. -- Samuel Wantman 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I imagine it's bot-related. Would we need to move all the old logs to the new name? --- RockMFR 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the old files where they are, but start using the new naming convention at the start of the year. See the proposal below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProveIt (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cfd means discussion not delete change the log page links 

message: Suggestions for renaming? - crz crztalk 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: /dev/null? Seems like overcategorization to me... -- nae'blis 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with Nae above - most magazine lists are better handled as lists instead of categories.  Beyond that, the name should match the actual wording used in the magazine for the list.  Also, it's missing the apostrophe and should be either "Fortune's" or "Fortune Magazine's". Dugwiki 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Fortunes Top 100 Places to Work in America]] 

message: :Category:Southern artists seems odd to me. It's a subcategory of :Category:Artists by state, though of course the south isn't a state. :Category:Louisiana artists etc. aren't subcategories of it. (Likewise for :Category:Southwestern artists.) At this stage, I'm not keen to delete, just wondering. Curiously the project page doesn't seem to provide for nominations for discussion, instead forcing me to choose my proposed solution. Comments? -- Hoary 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South(west)ern artists

message: Why is there a two-day waiting period for speedy renaming? I simply want to have a typographical error corrected (":Category:Abortion in the Canada to ":Category:Abortion in Canada") so that I get on with categorizing articles. There is nothing controversial about the fact that it is a typographical error and two days is a long time to wait to be able to get something done. -Severa  (!!!) 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is nothing in the old category, you can just create the new category and categorize to your heart's content.  You do not have to wait. -- Samuel Wantman 08:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I had considered that, but then, there would be two categories, one of which would need to be deleted. I didn't want to waste server space. -Severa  (!!!) 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two-day waiting period

message: :Category:People by religion and occupation has in the intro A category for persons who are notable for both their religion and their profession or are known for integrating their religion into their profession.  This while, well intentioned, is likely overly POV.
In the category we only have sub cats that don't include that reasonable definition but rather appear to be simply ways of grouping people already listed in other categories.  Given that, it appears reasonable to simply delete this all as over categorization.  Since this would be a rather large delete I decided to ask here to see how others feel.  Vegaswikian 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked to see, but I can imagine that there might be a handful of categories where people are notable for both their religion and profession. If there are any like this, and it is non-controversial and NPOV, they could remain.  The rest should probably be deleted.  If there is just one or two that survives, it probably should be deleted just to keep additional categories from re-seeding.  On the other hand, I imagine that many of these could remain as lists.  Perhaps a way to go about this delete is to prepare some templates that will be added at the end of the CfD discussion which would give people a week to save the contents of the category as a list, before it gets deleted.  The tagging of the categories with the template should be mentioned in the nomination.  I'm thinking that without the transitions into lists, this deletion will be very unpopular.  With annotations, the lists might be able to survive AfD. -- Samuel Wantman 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with profession by religion categories as long as religion is somehow relevent to the occupation.  However, it almost never is.  For politicians, judges, writers, and religious workers, sure, it's relevent.  For baseball and soccer players, certainly not.  For therapists, meybe ... I could see a case being made.  There's probably others I'm forgetting.  I did not support the idea of entertainers by religion, but I think a case could be made for comedians who write their own material, in which case they qualify as writers. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep in some cases it would be easier to make the case for most entries in a category but likely not for all.  Given the list suggestion from Samuel Wantman, would that be acceptable so that all of these similar intersection topics have the same solution to prevent recreation in the future?  I don't see a problem with AfD since this is a list v cat problem and if the list is the better way then they will likely not be considered for nomination.  Vegaswikian 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So maybe the nomination should be to listify?  Then it would happen following the normal course. But your comment raises the question of how does this happen today?  If it is completly manual, as I suspect it is, then your suggestion for a template to allow 7 days for those interested in keeping the data to make the list might be an improvement on the current process.  Vegaswikian 09:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:People by religion and occupation 

message: It seems that :Category:Academic institutions and :Category:Schools are really one in the same and the current setup seems to lead to confusion.  Would it make sense to merge :Category:Schools into :Category:Academic institutions? Vegaswikian 05:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea, since similar ground is covered by both. However, I believe that there may be a slight semantic difference between the two. I would suggest just merging all into academic institutions, but I really think "school" should be in the name. So how about: :Category:Schools and other academic institutions? - jc37 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From a cursory inspection, it looks like the schools category covers primary and secondary education, while the academic institutions category serves as a parent category for schools, universities, and other related subjects. I don't see a reason to merge them, but the schools category could probably use a clearer introduction. - EurekaLott 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article School it seems that it's mainly the US that uses it to encompass all academic institutions, whereas elswhere it's virtually never used for a tertiary institution (although it is used sometimes to mean a university department and sometimes a constituent part of a federal university - e.g. School of Advanced Study, London School of Economics but this is considered highly exceptional). Definitely we should keep :Category:Academic institutions. Timrollpickering 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even with an improved introduction, I'm not sure that keeping both is the right choice.  My thinking is, do a merge and then restructure if needed.  Schools are clearly a subset of academic institutions. Vegaswikian 09:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic institutions v Schools 

message: I'm noticing several discussion here about what to do about certain categories.  It would seem that the place to discuss these categories is on the CFD pages and not this talk page.  What is different about these discussions is that people are posting the problem before proposing a specific remedy to the problem.  Similar discussions like this happen at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.  I think this is a better model for consensus decision making than what we usually do at CfD.  Perhaps we need a template for tagging categories that says that a category is being discussed and briefly states the problem.  It could say that the result of the discussion might lead to the deletion, renaming or merging of the category without specifying which is being proposed.  At CFD the person would post the category, state what the problem is and mention some possible ways it could be dealt with.  If the nominator has a clear solution, it could be presented, and other editors could add their own alternative solutions.
If we really want to embrace this method of doing things, we should discourage a simple one word "Delete", "Keep", "Merge", "Listify" or whatever.  People could add their opinions and say why they agree or disagree with a proposed solution.  What we really need to look at is whether a consensus has been reached by the people who put the time and effort into discussing it.
Having discussion like this might lead to less contentious battles.  At the end of the discussion there might be a real consensus for a sensible solution. -- Samuel Wantman 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to have preliminary discussions 

message: Since this was built on common practice, had positive reactions, and is already being cited in CFD to good effect, I think OCAT is a guideline by now. Thoughts welcome. (Radiant) 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already been citing OCAT in CFD discussions.  I'll repeat here, that with citations to past CFD discussions that support each WP:OCAT type, the page would clearly be a guideline because it would be describing current practice.  The examples currently on the page are often hypothetical.  These hypotheticals are useful, but citations would be better. -- Samuel Wantman 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:OCAT]]

message: Some of the proposed renamings or mergers have resulted in long debates that have already taken place for the main articles, but don't always produce the same name results. Categories relating to the Roman Catholic Church are the most obvious current example, but there was also :Category:SS where the main article is at Schutzstaffel. All too often a lack of consensus or different people contributing to different debates at different times is resulting in articles and categories out of sync with each other - the worst of all worlds. It's very rare for people to oppose category renamings out of opposition to matching the main article, but rather they tend to disagree with the main article's title in the first place.
Is there any way that some nominations to rename articles and categories could be combined, so that a single naming can be agreed on? Timrollpickering 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that linking (discussions of) category names and main articles of the same name (or vice versa) seems a good idea, but not sure how to (semi-)automate such a process... Meanwhile, I also suggest anyone contributing to a CfD discussion thread should receive an automated message if/when the thread is edited following their visit, so they know that someone may've responded to their contribution (or at least added one of their own). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be possible by just setting up some javascript to mimic the new message warning, and retargeting it to the right page. -Amarkov blahedits 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and main articles 

message: Was there a discussion on Birth and Deaths by State in the United States? there is :Category:People of New Jersey that has people that have any residential relationship to New Jersey. I wanted to see just the people who died in New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Births and Deaths by State

message: Cross-posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Novel categorization, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) (this is where the November discussion was), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books
I know this has been hashed over before. Each of the sub-cats of  has its own style, but they are relatively consistent within their sub-cats, and I for one would like to apply a consistent style for written works. I have done a count: of the 344 sub-cats of written works by author (books, short stories, novels, etc.), 162 sub-cats are named [X] by [Name] or [X] of [Name] and 182 are named [Name] [Xs].  If we can't agree on aesthetics, can we at least go with the numbers (i.e. [Name] [Xs])?  Any thoughts? Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... Is there any particular reason we care enough about complete consistency of category titles to recategorize what will probably end up as 1000+ articles? -Amarkov blahedits 22:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; my answer is that it's easier to do this now than it will be some day when we have 2,000...or more...and someone must have a bot that can do this. I hope. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 14:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28categories%29#The_Return_of_Works_by_Artist... should be the single place to debate this. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books/works/etc. by author categories 

message: I created :Category:Barry family on December 9 and populated it with 5 members.  Someone unpopulated it and it has been deleted.  Was there debate about this deletion?  Was it a speedy without debate? TonyTheTiger 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It must have been unpopulated for 4 days, meaning it's a candidate for speedy deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It was deleted on 14 December 2006 by  with a comment that it was empty. -- Samuel Wantman 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reviewing the edit histories (why am I doing this?), it appears that User:203.214.91.215 went around on the 10th and removed the category everywhere you'd added it, which means that by the 14th, the category had been empty for 4 days.  ~ BigrTex 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Category 

message: Two days ago, I nominated the subcat :Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films for deletion. I've subsequently looked into the matter more thoroughly, and it looks to me like that's not the only problematic subcat of :Category:Propaganda films. There are several others that share the same defect of attracting very subjective POV additions, which should also be brought into the discussion. Is there a way to expand a nomination to include related subcats, after the discussion is already under way? Or is there a better way to handle this? Cgingold 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really best to include them at the beginning, but if there aren't too many comments, you should be able to add very closely related ones. -Amarkov blahedits 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding a nomination?? 

message: :Category:CfD_2006-11 still has a bunch of entries that were not listed or not closed out correctly.  If someone wants to jump in and give a hand cleaning up, please do.  Vegaswikian 07:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some cleanup help 

message: I wonder if I could ask, what is holding up the implementation of this nomination?  It is a large group nomination, listed on the 17th.  Since being listed the mass rename has achieved overwhelming support, albeit with one or two minor issues over the name of three of the categories.  Consensus has existed for a good deal more than seven days yet every other debate of the 17th has been closed but this one.  If someone could help get this sorted then I would be grateful.
Xdamrtalk 05:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would an iterim tagging of said categories with  to 'New' proper name pending Admin Manpower be allowed or would it create a headache when someone actually closed the CFD section? I'm not certain what the BOT would do if the new category is listed as a bluelink. I believe it creates or moves the old when operating on a redlink. Certainly,  could be added without harm with a summary note to the archived page showing the new name result. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 07:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 17#Category:Orders and decorations of Australia|CFD 17 December - Category:Orders and decorations of Australia]]

message: WikiProject Films has created a new department for categorizing films (on the Dec. 27), where we are trying to build consensus for a general and massive recategorizing. A very hasty member has decided to act by himself and has created a new series of categories starting from :Category:1890 American films to :Category:2009 American films, all contained in the new Template:Americanfilms. Also :Category:2006 Japanese films, :Category:2006 French films, :Category:2006 Spanish films, :Category:2006 Italian films, :Category:2006 Canadian films, :Category:2006 Australian films were created on the same individual impulse. We are not anywhere close to consensus yet, plus this should be part of a wider decision on organizing all possible film categories, before we coordinate the huge task and jump to work. IMO, all these new categories should be speedy deleted, until we have our plan ready. I do not doubt that the editor meant well, but all such categories should wait for a project decision, even if at the end we decide they are the way to go. Seeing that he is being massively reverted, he has promissed to stop further whimsical moves in categories and wait for us, which will be a big relief for all members concerned. Hoverfish Talk 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second this suggestion, as a fellow member of the WP Films Categorization Department. Girolamo Savonarola 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the diffusion tag, and tagged all of these categories for deletion  as I don't want to see them populated before there is a consensus.  If there is a decision later to have categories like these (which I don't think is a good idea), they can be recreated. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem with a set of new categories for films 

message: :::* All new category pages start out protected and users can only edit the talk pages.  The instructions on the talk pages instruct the category creator to add  which adds a box that says something like:
:::*:"This is a new category.  New categories are regularly reviewed by administrators and the community to see if the are correctly named and follow categorization guidelines.  Add a proposed description of the category on the talk page, and include the categories where this category should be put.  If after 10 days of being reviewed, there is no objection to the category, an administrator will unprotect the category page, copy the proposed descritpion, and categorize this category as requested.  If any Wikipedia user determines that the category does not conform with our guidelines they can propose that it be deleted.  If there is disagreement about deleting this category, discussions will continue at WP:CFD.  Warning: Editors risk having their work on this category undone.  You may want to wait until this tag is removed before proceeding adding articles to this category.  This notice can only be removed by an administrator.  Even when this notice is removed, a category can be nominated for deletion. Preliminary approval is not a guarantee that this category will have a long life."
:::* The next step would be that admins review the tagged categories, which are automatically categorized in :Category:New categories (review requested) or somethigh similar.  If the category is acceptable without any reservations, the admin would remove the original tag from the talk page and place a different tag would on the category page.  The category page would remain protected.  The new tag would say:
:::*:"This is a new category:  A preliminary review by an administrator has found that this category follows categorization guidelines and is correctly named.    After prelimnary approval, the category may still have this approval removed if anyone finds it objectionable.  If after 10 days, nobody challanges the approval of this category this tag will be removed and the page will be unprotected.  Until then, any proposal for the text for this page should be discussed on the talk page.  
:::*:To challange the approval of this category: add  to the talk page, which requests that the category be deleted.  Give your reasons for why you think the category should be deleted. If after being tagged with   for a week nobody challanges the deletion, this category will be deleted.  Anyone who removes the  disapproval should add  and follow the instructions on that template.  Administrators will review the history of the talk page to see if there has been any objections.  If you remove a  tag, you should be willing to defend this category at CfD.  Undefended creation of a category will weaken the chance of a category being approved.
:::*Reviewed and approved categories would be categorized in :Category:New categories (Admin reviewed).  Any category marked with  would be categorized in :Category:New categories (proposed for deletion).  This would make it easier to see what categories are being created.  The process helps guarantee that an admin will look at every newly created category, and allows anyone to object to a category before it is linked into the categorization scheme.
:::** could only be used on a new category.  The creator of the category could remove a prod tag.  Once a category survives being prodded, it would need to be tagged with CfD.  Admins will have to check that a prod has not been removed before unprotecting the category.
:::**CfD would continue as normal, with one exception.  If there is no consensus to keep a new category the default would be delete instead of keep. Hopefully most of the bad categories would be removed shortly after creation.  The process will probably discourage many newbies from creating categories.  I'm undecided if that is a good or bad thing.
:::::-- Samuel Wantman 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a modified, less radical (PROD)-like proposal

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Samuel Wantman 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:CatDiffuse}} 

message: :Notice: Please see Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Performers by Performance et al., for a "CfD-like" discussion about categorisation of performers by performance. - jc37 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Performers by performance

message: I have proposed a new speedy rename mechanism for categories at Wikipedia talk:Village pump#New category speedy rename criterion.  When I wrote the proposal, I though thta the Village Pump would be the best place to submit the idea.  After looking here, however, I almost wonder if I should have placed the discussion here.  Anyhow, please let me know your thoughts.  I think this may ease some of the category renames.Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New speedy rename proposal 

message: Following the failed nomination to delete :Template:CatDiffuse, a discussion at the template's talk page about changing the template has been progressing (albeit slowly).  Please contribute to the discussion.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to [[:Template:CatDiffuse]] 

message: What do I do with categories that weren't deleted or renamed from CfD days that have long since fallen off the main page? Can they be speedied or do they have to be relisted? –Unint 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missed tasks from completed discussions 

message: I reported this before, but don't think there was a discussion about it. There's something wrong with the CfD page. Clicking on the edit link for one section sometimes brings you to a neighboring section. Who knows how many misplaced/missed votes happened as a result? I use Firefox 2 on WinXP SP2, but doubt it matters. Xiner (talk, email) 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it repeatable for you?  I went down the page at random clicking the edit links and didn't have a wrong section once.  If it is repeatable, can you copy the link that is behind the edit link (ie right click and "copy link location") and paste it here. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens all of the time.  I believe that the cause is an added section since it normally happens with newer discussions.  I think the pattern is that an editor loads the page.  Spends time reading, maybe doing something else, then goes in to comment.  The edit command edits by section number so if a new heading is added, the section number will be off by one, from the old data on the editors machine, and the editor will have the wrong section brought up for comment.  Vegaswikian 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never understood why this happens, but I have been able to fix the problem by doing a null edit -- editing the entire page and just adding a space somewhere. -- Samuel Wantman 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't even need to add a space anywhere. Just hit edit, then save. The edit won't appear in your contribs list, but it should force an update. Carcharoth 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's wrong with the page. 

message: All the articles were recently removed from :Category:Controversies. It is listed under Pending completions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19. Should the articles have been removed now? --Jagz 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Category