Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Incomplete cat move
Somehow the move of Category:Contents portal to Category:Wikipedia contents was removed from the project page, as if completed (by Ymblanter) before the old category was actually depopulated (there are still pages in Category:Contents portal at the time I'm posting this — note that I have already posted about this at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Fixed double redirects, but..., so the pages may be recategorized at any time by someone else). - dcljr (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Dcljr: Doing... DannyS712 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Dcljr: Done DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody know what should be done here? To remove manually the template comments at each from 13K redirects?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: {{R from television episode}} was updated to rename the category. You would just have to wait until the job queue gets to "moving" everything over. I'll purge all of the pages to move things along. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Lowering protection and nacs
Would it be possible to lower the protection of the page to extended confirmed, and instead use an edit filter to control access? Allow all sysops, deny everyone else to start with, and then whitelist users that have demonstrated understanding of CfDs and perform NACs. I'm thinking of myself right now, but there should probably be a system in case other users also get as involved. Thoughts? Pinging @Ymblanter, who has thankfully carried out a lot of the closes I have made. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am afraid there will be generally no consensus for this. The general sentiment in these discussions is always that if a user wants to perform admin tasks they should go to RfA first.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Grandfathers of Presidents of the United States
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: Hi. Category:Grandfathers of Presidents of the United States was recreated, and while I've tagged it for speedy deletion per G4, it will need to be emptied again. Can it be added to the page for the bot to process? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done, per CFD 2017 Jan 21. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Bot feature requests
I'm starting this section to gather feature requests for my bot. Please discuss each request in a separate subsection. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirect handling when moving
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was discussed in the BRFA and initially kept the same as Cydebot. Currently, all moves do not leave a redirect. How do we want to handle redirects from moves?
- Never leave redirects
- This was Cydebot's intention in the code, but it didn't work consistently.
- Always leave redirects
- Use REDIRECT on an entry to leave a redirect, otherwise don't
- Use NO REDIRECT on an entry to not leave a redirect, otherwise do
— JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I would say 3. The default should be no redirects, but it is also nice to have an option to create one (such as football clubs changing name).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- 3. Creating content should be a human decision not an automatic bot process and the endless redirects do slow things down. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with 3. Category redirects are useful when used carefully, and thus should be considered on a case-by-case basis by a human editor. Also, bots should not mass-create pages (including redirects) except under very narrowly defined parameters. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- 3. Creating content should be a human decision not an automatic bot process and the endless redirects do slow things down. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Implemented #3 — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's great! What are the parameters (e.g. capitalization, spacing, etc.)? I assume it is something along the lines of
* REDIRECT [[:Category:A]] to [[:Category:B]]
but would appreciate confirmation. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Re-categorizing by updating templates
Feel free to uncollapse if you want to revisit this.
|
---|
This was requested by Black Falcon in the bot request and Fayenatic london above. For cases where the category name is placed in a template parameter, this is easy. How do we want to cover this?
— JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
|
Retain
Cydebot used to automatically process Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Retain (indeed it was set up by Cyde on my request years ago), but stopped some time back. Currently it's done semi-manually by Armbrust running ArmbrustBot on individual entries but would it be more helpful to restore the automatic system? Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I would prefer to add a section to CFDW. Any objection to doing that? — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not from me. I'm in favor of merging /Retain and /Large (see section below) into the main /Working page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note that when processing /Retain, Armbrust also adds the {{Old CfD}} template on the talk pages. I'm not sure whether that could be done as thoroughly if it was fully automated. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fayenatic london, does Armbrust add {{Old CfD}} manually, or does ArmbrustBot do it automatically?
- JJMC89, is that feasible? It would be great to consolidate /Retain into a section of /Working. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- ArmbrustBot does it, e.g. [1], sometimes editing 20+ pages per minute. Only Armbrust knows how much manual input is needed. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I fill the parameters of the template manually, and then the bot places it on the category talk pages automatically. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- It should be doable. I'll let you know if I run into any issues when I'm coding it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- ArmbrustBot does it, e.g. [1], sometimes editing 20+ pages per minute. Only Armbrust knows how much manual input is needed. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note that when processing /Retain, Armbrust also adds the {{Old CfD}} template on the talk pages. I'm not sure whether that could be done as thoroughly if it was fully automated. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not from me. I'm in favor of merging /Retain and /Large (see section below) into the main /Working page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay. You can now use WP:CFDW#Retain. For now, it is manually triggered so that I can monitor for any issues while it is running. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I've checked a few categories, and it seems to be working well so far. One minor request: when specifying
|action=...
(e.g., here), would you please correct "deleting" to "deletion"? Otherwise, the template generates the text: "This category was nominated for deleting [sic] on ...". Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This is now fully automatic. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Control characters in listing
@JJMC89: please could you program the bot to remove or ignore invisible control characters where these have been inadvertently pasted at the end of the category name on the Working page? e.g. see [2].
These characters are quite often picked up unwittingly when copying category titles. – Fayenatic London 17:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I don't see any issue caused by the left-to-right mark that you removed. Black Falcon added the entry to CFDW at 14:15. The bot recategorized the 9 articles and 2 categories at 14:17. The category didn't get moved until 16:01 because the target existed and wasn't deleted until 15:24. Left-to-right and right-to-left markers are being ignored in page titles already. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: OK, that sounds good. I agree that the contents were moved despite the LTR mark, but please can you explain a bit more about the delay in moving the category page? As you say, the target page was deleted at 15:24, but the old page was not moved until after I removed the LTR mark from CFDW at 15:50. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: That was just the next time that the bot ran after the target was deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: OK, that sounds good. I agree that the contents were moved despite the LTR mark, but please can you explain a bit more about the delay in moving the category page? As you say, the target page was deleted at 15:24, but the old page was not moved until after I removed the LTR mark from CFDW at 15:50. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Merging
The bot now supports merging, including multiple merge targets but not selective merges. For this set of instructions the bot made these edits and performed these deletions. Feedback is welcome. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Everything looked good to me, and I have just one minor request (see below). I see the bot is also performing some uncontroversial genfixes (e.g., here and here) as well as removing sort keys applicable to the former category (e.g., here), which is typically appropriate/necessary when merging.
- My one request is this: for redirects, when shifting the category below the rcat template (e.g., here), can you also: (a) shift the DEFAULTSORT so that the DEFAULTSORT and category code are together; and (b) add a line between the rcat and category code per WP:REDCAT? Ideally, the outcome should be:
#REDIRECT [[List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters]] {{R from fictional element|Dungeons & Dragons}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Bogun (Dungeons and Dragons)}} [[Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures]] [[Category:Fictional artificial intelligences]]
- As always, thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, excellent work, thank you. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Skip/warn on circular instructions
JJMC89 Is there any way to have the bot detect and skip/warn on circular instructions as in Special:PermanentLink/972655557#Speedy moves (ODEX -> Odex and versa)? –xenotalk 13:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Xeno: Sorry for the delay. I've implemented skipping. The updated code is now live. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
2 categories needing listing
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah Seng Huat was closed by Mdaniels5757, but it was never implemented. Could someone do that. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Question on formatting of categories that are listed for deletion
When a category is listed for deletion, will it delete if it is listed in the following format?:
*{{lc|Chefs who committed suicide}}
or does it have to be
*[[:Category:Chefs who committed suicide]] Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Currently, only the latter format is supported. I could add support for {{c}}/{{cl}}/{{lc}} since the bot already recognizes those in other contexts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- That would be helpful if you did add for it. When categories are listed for deletion by a nominator, it is using the {{lc}} format, so if admins are closing discussions and copying the categories and pasting it on the work page, they will be in that format. It would save us the step of changing the format of the categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Category:Cornish people by occupation to Category:People from Cornwall by occupation
@Fayenatic london and Timrollpickering: I'd closed and completed the work, scrupulously following the instructions for non-adminstrators. Heck, I'd written a fair amount of the instructions for non-administrators over a decade ago. This was fairly complicated, requiring a hundred+ edits over hours, and careful category re-parenting. Why, oh why, did somebody revert that work? Without even reading the closing? (Although FL did revert after reading the close, so I got a notice, otherwise I'd never have known about it.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- @William Allen Simpson: Thanks for all the work done in good faith, and apologies for all the reverts. The weakness of that process was that because you created new category pages and tagged the old ones for deletion, the page history was lost; so it's better to move the pages. In the case of a rename rather than a merge you would have been able to do that yourself. I'd better review the instructions for non-admin closures. These days we ask non-admins to record the close ar WT:CFDW for an admin to process. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I look forward to seeing the merged histories on the first 4 target pages. I'd tagged only those 4 pages for deletion so that they could be recreated in the future, as the participants had asked. However, in most cases, that was the main reason for the merge: the merge targets were category redirects, and those templates were simply swapped, so the histories were kept on both pages after the merge. You've destroyed those histories by your moves. Please restore them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)- For reference, this discussion concerns Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_13#Category:Cornish_people_by_occupation.
- I cannot see any of the former category redirects that you referred to above. All that I found at the target names were recently created new category pages. I deleted these under WP:G6 so that the old pages could be moved over them. Can you give an example of the pages where you say that I've destroyed page history?
- If any of the Cornish writers categories are re-created, I will be happy to move the page history back to the "Cornish" names. In the meantime, and in case any of them are not re-created, I think it is better for the page history to be visible to all editors at the new names, than visible only to admins at the old names. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Back in my developer days, I would have been able to show you the table entries, but cannot anymore.
- You deleted the history of the targets, so you cannot see that they were previously category redirects.
- Then you (actually JJMC89 bot III) moved the history from the "Cornish" page to the "from Cornwall" target.
- Unfortunately, it's really painful to undo that merge, and requires developer access to separate them one by one.
- Please undelete all the old now deleted histories. Better that both appear in one place, as ugly and confusing as it will appear, than not appearing at all.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's not how we did things in the olden days. We used to have a simple process where folks who wanted to recreate a page just asked for the old history to be reinstated, then worked on top of that. Maybe there's a fancy new tool that duplicates a select number of history entries from one page to another? I've been unable to find it.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Back in my developer days, I would have been able to show you the table entries, but cannot anymore.
- @Fayenatic london: I look forward to seeing the merged histories on the first 4 target pages. I'd tagged only those 4 pages for deletion so that they could be recreated in the future, as the participants had asked. However, in most cases, that was the main reason for the merge: the merge targets were category redirects, and those templates were simply swapped, so the histories were kept on both pages after the merge. You've destroyed those histories by your moves. Please restore them.
- The original problem was that Timrollpickering added the categories to the Work page, even though the work had already been done. Better never to do things that were not requested.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC) - Also, Fayenatic london made a mistake for non-fiction writers. The participants did not ask for non-fiction writers to be preserved for future ethnic categories. Please read the close more carefully. I'd spent considerable time looking at the histories and weighing the comments prior to carefully closing. That's probably the reason it hadn't been done by somebody else. The process took hours, and required manually changing the poets, writers, etc.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)- I can see that you spent a good amount of time manually re-categorising some biographies into more specific categories, e.g. from writers to poets, or removing unnecessary parent categories from articles. This is commendable, so thank you for doing all that. None of that work has been reverted or lost.
- For the remaining articles that did not need that sort of selective treatment, you could have left it to the bot to move them along with the category pages.
- As for the non-fiction writers category, the only decision that I took differently from scientists etc was to let the bot create a redirect at the old page. Redirects are cheap, and in the past we used to let the bot create them by default. I thought this additional one might be useful in case there are notable non-fiction writers e.g. writing about the Cornish language. I often create category redirects where they could be useful, and don't consider this a mistake. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I used a category redirect with complete history all but 3 of the "Cornish" entries, because many/most editors will probably tag things at the "natural" name. I left it to the category redirect bot to handle those changes (as it has for over a decade). If I'd wanted the CfD bot, I'd have asked for it.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC) - Glad you didn't touch the articles.
- But the categories shouldn't have the Cornish culture tag anymore. That's just one of the changes that you lost by deleting my targets and moving the pages!
- Moreover, you deleted all the talk pages, that I'd carefully moved and/or merged. Please restore my target talk pages!
- There are existing separate subcategories for Writers about Cornwall and Historians of Cornwall. Yes, redirects are cheap. I'd had the category redirects on all the categories. I don't know why you deleted them.
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I used a category redirect with complete history all but 3 of the "Cornish" entries, because many/most editors will probably tag things at the "natural" name. I left it to the category redirect bot to handle those changes (as it has for over a decade). If I'd wanted the CfD bot, I'd have asked for it.
- The original problem was that Timrollpickering added the categories to the Work page, even though the work had already been done. Better never to do things that were not requested.
Looking at this as best I can, what appears to have happened is:
- I closed and complete the category merges, including Talk page move with redirect.
- Timrollpickering listed the close here the next day, long after I'd finished, without prompting.
- Somebody ran a bot to effectuate the closing, but because the work had already been done, wiped out the work, and really made a hash of the page histories.
- Fayenatic london did some more work, either before or after the bot, confusing the histories.
- FL then read my closing, realized he had made mistakes, and changed some bot parameters, running it a second time? Making more of a hash of things.
I need help completely undo the work of the bot and FL to restore the page histories. This will probably take more time than the original work, but needs to be done to preserve the histories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've asked for the Talk restoration at WP:RFU. But the other page histories will require more sophisticated help, possibly a developer, because the WP:SPLIT tool works by A SINGLE date, and the history dates will be interleaved.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)- I'm sorry that the talk pages got deleted by the bot, which I had not anticipated. I would have fixed that; thanks Liz for responding more quickly. I have undeleted the talk page redirects as well.
- I have merged and re-split the page history of Category:Writers from Cornwall, ending up with your updated category page, moving your version of the redirect back to Category:Cornish writers (to give you the credit there rather than the CFD bot), and omitting some junk history that was caused by my mistakes. If you would accept this outcome then I will do the same on the other three. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Most the history at the new page now was originally at the old page....
- Looking at Category:Cornish writers &action=history, seems kinda odd, as it shows my edit -598 lines, but no prior history. If that's all that can be done, so-be-it.
- Looking at Category:Writers from Cornwall &action=history, the old history is there, beginning at "2020-11-13T17:10:48 Rathfelder". My next edit in time looks a bit odd, because it was against a New page. But again, so-be-it.
- My own log shows that I'd created those 4 pages:
- 2020-12-19T02:08:16 William Allen Simpson talk contribs created page Category:Dramatists and playwrights from Cornwall (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Cornish people by occupation)
- 2020-12-19T02:00:28 William Allen Simpson talk contribs created page Category:Novelists from Cornwall (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Cornish people by occupation)
- 2020-12-19T01:25:41 William Allen Simpson talk contribs created page Category:Poets from Cornwall (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Cornish people by occupation)
- 2020-12-19T01:22:44 William Allen Simpson talk contribs created page Category:Writers from Cornwall (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Cornish people by occupation)
- While I'm looking at my log, now that the Talk pages have been restored, you can see that I'd spent about 5 hours working on this, and I'd mostly created (by move with redirect) Talk pages. Many (Archaeologists, Architects, Clergy, Explorers, Engineers, Farmers, Inventors, Painters, Sailors) target Category pages were existing category redirects, so I'd simply swapped them to let the redirect bot finish the work. Hopefully, you can restore the history on both sides for the rest of them as well.
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored the new versions of category pages that you created, into the page history at the new names, as requested. I also made those the live versions, except for one that Dimadick edited after you.
- There is one where there was an original page history (as a redirect), which I have not merged since it would be too messy: Category:Sportspeople from Cornwall. I have instead given credit to you when reinstating your recent (hidden) version manually.
- Otherwise, I did not see the pre-existing category redirects that you refer to.
- In the non-writer categories, I did not move your new redirects e.g. [3] out of the page history back to the old name, because IMHO it is not worth the effort, and editors are not very likely to use "Cornish xxx". (For info, the workflow would be: (i) delete the page, (ii) undelete that revision alone, (iii) move it back to the old name, (iv) undelete the rest, (v) go to Wikidata and reinstate the enwiki link which would have been removed at the first step.)
- By the way, that's another reason why the category page should be moved when implementing a CFD, rather than doing a copy-and-paste: the Wikidata link is then automatically updated. You won't have seen the behind-the-scenes edits that I've been making at Wikidata to fix the above. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is probably good enough for going onward.
- Sportspeople was already a mess, and Oculi was doing some updating himself at around the same time.
- Looks like some history is lost forever. My logs now say that I've created most of those pages, whereas they didn't say that yesterday.
- OTOH, my logs no longer say that I'd created all those new Talk pages during my moves. Guess that was lost by the process, too.
- I'd warned (above) that splitting histories would probably as much or more work than I'd already done.
- My thought on closing was that partisans were extremely likely to recreate those pages, looking at the many solicited objections. Oh well, we'll wait and see.
- Wikidata is supposed to update itself eventually; that was the idea anyway.
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Which instructions for non-admin closures were you referring to, please? Something other than WP:NAC or WP:CFDAI? – Fayenatic London 23:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'd not remembered the essay WP:NAC. I've always used WP:CFDAI and Wikipedia:Deletion process that I'd helped write back in 2006. Checking, WP:CFDAI was copied from Wikipedia:Deletion process in 2008, so it's been familiar to me for a long time.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
NACs
done
|
---|
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: just one this time - per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#Category:Tamil Nadu drama television series please delete Category:Tamil Nadu drama television series. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
|
- 13 July 2020
- 15 July 2020
- 18 July 2020
- 27 July 2020
done
|
---|
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: A bunch more. Thanks again. Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
|
- 29 July 2020
- 6 August 2020
done
|
---|
Please copy the following over. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Merge then delete
Move
|
- 18 August 2020
done
|
---|
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: A few more. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
|
- 25 August 2020
done
|
---|
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 17, please delete the following categories. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
|
- 8 September 2020
done
|
---|
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: I'm hoping to try and tackle some of the backlog soon, but for now per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Category:Actors at the Royal Exchange, Manchester please delete Category:Actors at the Royal Exchange, Manchester (already emptied). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
- 21 September 2020
done
|
---|
@JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Bibliomaniac15: a few more. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
|
- 23 December 2020
done
|
---|
|
30 December 2020
- Category:People from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear to Category:People from Sunderland
- Category:Sportspeople from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear to Category:Sportspeople from Sunderland
- Category:Cricketers from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear to Category:Cricketers from Sunderland
- Category:Footballers from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear to Category:Footballers from Sunderland
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you but I do not think this is NAC material. I would have probably closed as no consensus. We need an independent admin I am afraid.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- In closing this complex discussion that has languished for more than a month, I've read everything, including the speedy nomination, and the cited prior nominations, and the history log of the main article. For !vote counters, it was 6:3:1. As my closing comment notes, it conforms to both WP:C2C and WP:C2D. But of course anybody is welcome to take this to DRV.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)- That’s an interesting claim, but they were not brought up during the discussion at all. Also it’s not true at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Really don't like being called a liar. But then, as you pretty much called everybody else a liar during the discussion, I'm in good company.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Really don't like being called a liar. But then, as you pretty much called everybody else a liar during the discussion, I'm in good company.
- That’s an interesting claim, but they were not brought up during the discussion at all. Also it’s not true at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- In closing this complex discussion that has languished for more than a month, I've read everything, including the speedy nomination, and the cited prior nominations, and the history log of the main article. For !vote counters, it was 6:3:1. As my closing comment notes, it conforms to both WP:C2C and WP:C2D. But of course anybody is welcome to take this to DRV.
- Thank you but I do not think this is NAC material. I would have probably closed as no consensus. We need an independent admin I am afraid.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
6 January 2021
-
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Fossil insects of Africa to Category:Prehistoric insects of Africa
- Category:Fossil insects of Asia to Category:Prehistoric insects of Asia
- Category:Fossil insects of Europe to Category:Prehistoric insects of Europe
- Category:Fossil insects of North America to Category:Prehistoric insects of North America
- Category:Fossil insects of the Caribbean to Category:Prehistoric insects of the Caribbean
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
-
- William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am not going to implement this close (and I believe the close of 5 December is not good, and definitely not in NAC domain), as well as any future closes by this user. I hope another administrator can look at them.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
NACs 2 February 2021
After a long break, I thought I'd try some more non-admin closures. All are from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26. @JJMC89, Ymblanter, and Fayenatic london: would you be willing to copy them over?
- Delete Category:Anshan (Persia)
- Merge Category:Defunct airlines of Yugoslavia to Category:Airlines of Yugoslavia
- Delete Category:Recipients of the Czechoslovak Military Order for Liberty
- Delete Category:Recipients of the Belarusian Democratic Republic 100th Jubilee Medal
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:YouTubers stubs and Category:TikTokers stubs do not get moved
Does anybody understand why Category:YouTubers stubs and Category:TikTokers stubs, both in the speedy section, do not get moved?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- They should be handled manually.
If the category [...] requires template editing [...], list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual rather than here.
— JJMC89 (T·C) 07:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 1 September 2021
Under WP:Categories for discussion/Working/Archive 3#Move, please add:
The bot didn't finish the job for whatever reason. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:Political_party_colour_templates was hardly a strong consensus, but as it hasn't been taken to DRV and some have been processed, we might as well finish it. User:Number 57 can you remember why you didn't feed them all to the bot? [4] – Fayenatic London 22:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- MJL asked me to add all the ones they had compiled at User:MJL/sandbox3 – I was unaware this list was incomplete. Cheers, Number 57 23:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit request
Could someone please remove the listing of cleanup categories (in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large#Retain). They've long since been resolved, and the bot is removing CfD tags I added for an entirely separate discussion thinking they are related to one closed six months ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
NAC 24 October 2021
Hello. I have closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 24 that requires the following three categories to be emptied and then deleted. Once I am sure that I am handing things correctly, I will close the other discussions of categories with similar circumstances. I want to do one discussion first all the way to the end to make sure I am not making errors across multiple discussions.
- Category:Anti-Catholic publications
- Category:Anti-Catholic organizations
- Category:Anti-Catholic activists
Thank you. Please let me know if there's a better way for me to handle things. I will try to be helpful, but don't want to make a mess until I'm sure I'm doing things the right way. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The CFD looks like an obvious no consensus close to me, so I recommend declining this request. (This is completely separate from our disagreement regarding non-admin closes, but because I can be seen as being involved with you in that realm, I won't decline it myself.) -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion, and note that you have always been collegial towards me. If you would like to revert my close and relist, or mark it no-consensus, that would be fine with me. We have a small number of votes that contravene established consensus and an RFC that had much heavier participation than this discussion, without an assertion that consensus has changed. Therefore, I have de-weighted those keep votes for lacking a rationale. You may see it differently. Either you can proceed, or we can wait for others to weigh in. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer, but I still feel too involved because I only looked into this because I saw "NAC" on my watchlist. Yes, I think you weighted a previous RFC too heavily. While it can give guidance to editors, the key here is that many participants were aware of the RFC and decided to keep it anyway for various reasons, and I see those reasons as valid. Perhaps a way forward would be to relist the discussion and ping the participants of that RFC who have not yet participated in that discussion and see if that helps tilt the scale one way or the other? -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea to try to generate a stronger consensus one way or the other. Also, there are a number of other discussions on the same page for similar categories relying on the same RFC. We should probably direct editors to the entire set. Jehochman Talk 20:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done I have relisted them and pinged the RFC participants who had not opined. Hopefully my action did not break anything too badly. Thank you for your guidance. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer, but I still feel too involved because I only looked into this because I saw "NAC" on my watchlist. Yes, I think you weighted a previous RFC too heavily. While it can give guidance to editors, the key here is that many participants were aware of the RFC and decided to keep it anyway for various reasons, and I see those reasons as valid. Perhaps a way forward would be to relist the discussion and ping the participants of that RFC who have not yet participated in that discussion and see if that helps tilt the scale one way or the other? -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion, and note that you have always been collegial towards me. If you would like to revert my close and relist, or mark it no-consensus, that would be fine with me. We have a small number of votes that contravene established consensus and an RFC that had much heavier participation than this discussion, without an assertion that consensus has changed. Therefore, I have de-weighted those keep votes for lacking a rationale. You may see it differently. Either you can proceed, or we can wait for others to weigh in. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
NAC?
Hi, I'm trying to understand how I can help with the backlog as a non-admin. Would it be helpful if, for instance, I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 16 § Color categories as "delete" and then listed it here for implementation by an admin? JBchrch talk 16:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: Yes, by all means. That one is certainly clear.– Fayenatic London 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Fayenatic london and Done, I have closed this one as delete. I will list any other ones that are eligible for a NAC in subsequent sections below. JBchrch talk 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have NAC'd Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17 § Category:Seljuq generals. I invite any willing admin to implement it if the closure is acceptable. JBchrch talk 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Here are two additional NACs:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18 § Category:Software that uses Lenslok
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18 § Category:Video games using code wheel copy protection JBchrch talk 14:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
...and two more:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 26 § Category:12th Tripura Legislative Assembly members
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 27 § Category:Old English language JBchrch talk 23:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi all, just want to make sure that someone has taken care of these two closures above? Don't want to badger, just making sure that these closures have not been left "unactioned". JBchrch talk 19:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
DannyS712 NACs
Hi all. I'm going to have some extra time on my hands in the next few weeks and plan to resume working on NACs. I see that NACs have been posted here in various sections. Is there a better way to be doing this? Especially since there is not automatic archiving set up for this page, as far as I can tell. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've setup bot archiving. I'd say just post a new section when you have some closed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Script?
I was thinking about writing a simple script for listing NACs here. Would this be a good idea, and if so, what would be the easiest format to process (I might be able to just duplicate what the bot would process)? ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you could list them in the format required at WP:CFDW, including the dated heading, that would be ideal and a welcome time-saver. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I'll see what I can do. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)