WikiProject Categories | |||||||
|
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 21 | 169 | 8 | 198 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 8 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 15 | 8 | 24 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
|
Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived. |
Recategorizing articles after speedily renaming the category
If a category is renamed using speedily renaming, are the articles in that category automatically recategorized to the new category name? I know there a bots that will do this for soft redirect categories, but will that happen automatically for renaming? Needless to say I don't want to ask to rename a category and then have to edit all the articles in that category. Coastside (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Coastside yes, once a category renaming is approved by an admin, a bot moves the category page and recategorises the articles and subcategories in the category. TSventon (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- TSventon, where can I locate the status of the request for speedy renaming of already completed requests. I seem to can't find in this article page. --Thaejas (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thaejas the process is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Do you have an example in mind? Requests are not archived so the easiest way to check an old request is to look at the history of the category which was nominated. For example, click on the redlink Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district and you will see a message 03:18, 25 January 2021 JJMC89 bot III talk contribs moved page Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district to Category:Cities and towns in Jajpur district without leaving a redirect (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district). That was an example of a full discussion which used speedy criteria. TSventon (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- TSventon, Thanks. I was searching for the speedy renaming of the category Category:Populated places in Madya Pradesh that I had requested, but couldn't find the log in this category page. I feel a log containing the speedy renaming should be existing for reference. --Thaejas (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thaejas again, the redlink tells you where the category was moved to. Fayenatic has a log of speedy renames been suggested before and is it a good idea? TSventon (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Any logged-in user can see where the category was moved to; just click on the red link, and you should see
- 06:49, 11 January 2022 JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs) moved page Category:Populated places in Madya Pradesh to Category:Populated places in Madhya Pradesh without leaving a redirect (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy)
- If I click the link when not logged in, I see "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name", and at the end of that message, "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log" – but that particular deletion log link shows no information if not logged in, because the history was stored in the move log rather than the deletion log. The user could still get to the info by changing the drop-down from "Deletion log" to "All public logs" and then clicking the "Show" button, but that's not very obvious.
- So, there is a system log – do stay logged in for easier access to it! However, there is not a log page like there is for full CFD discussions, where you could quickly trace the rationale by using "what links here".
- Such a log has indeed been suggested before. Searching the archive (top of this page) for Speedy Log, I found Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_15#Documenting_discussion_outcomes, where there was some support in 2013 for logging, and two suggestions for where to do it. Would it be more use to:
- always add {{Old CfD}} on the category talk page after any move/merge by a CFD bot; or
- list all speedy renames & merges on a new permanent log page?
- Since that discussion, at least keep and no consensus outcomes are being recorded on the talk page by the bot. @JJMC89: would either or both of the above options be feasible to be added to the functions of user:JJMC89 bot III? – Fayenatic London 14:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Any logged-in user can see where the category was moved to; just click on the red link, and you should see
- Thaejas again, the redlink tells you where the category was moved to. Fayenatic has a log of speedy renames been suggested before and is it a good idea? TSventon (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- TSventon, Thanks. I was searching for the speedy renaming of the category Category:Populated places in Madya Pradesh that I had requested, but couldn't find the log in this category page. I feel a log containing the speedy renaming should be existing for reference. --Thaejas (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thaejas the process is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Do you have an example in mind? Requests are not archived so the easiest way to check an old request is to look at the history of the category which was nominated. For example, click on the redlink Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district and you will see a message 03:18, 25 January 2021 JJMC89 bot III talk contribs moved page Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district to Category:Cities and towns in Jajpur district without leaving a redirect (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district). That was an example of a full discussion which used speedy criteria. TSventon (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- TSventon, where can I locate the status of the request for speedy renaming of already completed requests. I seem to can't find in this article page. --Thaejas (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Mass renaming requests
Fayenatic, Dicklyon, other watchers, I forget how this has been dealt with previously, but could large batches of uncontroversial requests be collapsed or given their own section to make it easier to navigate the other requests? TSventon (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they can be collapsed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Categories pertaining to former administrative divisions
I am facing this problem with Ukrainian categories, because Ukraine had an administrative reform in 2020. I was recently told that there are similar problems for Latvia, which had a similar reform last year. Let me pick up an example of Ukraine and explain what the problem is. The reform reduced the number of raions - the second-level administrative units - so that some raions were merged in the bigger raions (and some of these bigger raions were newly created, and some were existing earlier but were significantly expanded as a result of the reform). Some raions were actually split as a result of the reform - for example, Kitsman Raion was split between Vyzhnytsia Raion and Chernivtsi Raion, Chernivtsi Oblast. Now, we have at least two problems.
- We have categories such as Category:People from Kitsman Raion. Before 2020, this category was filled by the articles on people who were born in the area which in 2020 was Kitsman Raion, but not necessarily at the time it was Kitsman Raion - some were born for example when the area belonged to Romania, and the raion did not exist. I personally find it poor practice, but this is not the point. The point is what do we do with the category, if the raion does not exist anymore. Should we search by hand in which village the person was born, determine where the village is currently located, and then move it to the category of the raion it is located now? It is extremely tedious but in principle doable if the village currently exists under the same name. If it was abolished or renamed we may not have information on its location. And, imagine, we have done all this work - should I just delete the categories after marking them as empty for seven days, because the idea is they become empty?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is no category Category:Populated places in Kitsman Raion, but there is for example Category:Populated places in Terebovlia Raion. What do we do with this one? Move articles to other categories (which can be done via speedy for the raions which were merged into other raions but needs to be done manually for the raions which were split)? Or do we keep also historical categories? But then for example the borders of Vyzhnytsia Raion were significantly changed in 2020, and possibly also in the 1960s when there was another reform, and possibly sometime in between. At which time point do we keep these historical categories?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- This part is easy: we do not populate categories for former divisions with current populated places. Only the current divisions are considered WP:DEFINING. Therefore the old category needs to be split between the new raions.
- But we do keep categories with sufficient content about history, and we keep at least some "People from" categories – see e.g. Category:Katanga Province, which was kept but purged following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 4#Former subdivisions in D. R. Congo. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The logic of historical categories is that they refer to subdivisions of states which no longer exist, such as Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the German Empire and so on. Ukraine, for instance, has categories for the governorates and uyezds of the Russian Empire, for the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and for the Kingdom of Hungary. In theory, you could treat the Ukrainian SSR in the same way, as it qualifies as a different state than independent Ukraine. The borders of the modern Ukrainian oblasts seem to be the same as those of Soviet Ukraine. My impression is that most raion borders hadn't changed much until recently, but the recent administrative reform of course changes the situation. In any case, everybody needs to be categorized at least according to present-day administrative units, because they help the reader of the article to situate the person in simple geographical terms. The historical categories are interesting and relevant in their own way, but they obviously are only complementary to present-day categories and can't be used as an alternative to them, except in cases where only the historical category is known. You could in theory use Soviet Ukrainian raions for categorizing people born in Soviet Ukraine, but even then you would have to use the present-day administrative borders as well for categorizing the same persons, as everybody has to be categorized at least according to them. You mentioned cases when it would be difficult to classify people according to the new second-level subdivisions. My advice would be to try to classify everybody according to them and to use the oblast-level classification for those you can't place in the new second-level categories. Montenois (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Categorization is supposed to capture defining qualities (WP:CATDEF). It seems to me that people by location should be defined by how secondary sources characterize them, and I assume this is typically is their nationality or their place of birth. Taras Shevchenko was a Ukrainian author, subject of the Russian empire, born in Moryntsi. Does anyone know or care what raion he is from? I imagine raion might only be significant for people born in a rural location not associated with a village. —Michael Z. 22:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- And “sometimes by notable residence.” See WP:COP-PLACE. —Michael Z. 22:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- So I think people–place categories ought to represent the set of places associated with people by sources, regardless of period or geographical details, and not necessarily all currently existing places. It’s about what sources associate them with, not the exact GPS coordinates and boundaries according to Google Maps. (Of course, sources might define a person variously, so the set of categories might seem contradictory.) —Michael Z. 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Changes to CFD templates re indenting
Regular participants at CFD may be missing the way that nominations, including rationales, used to be indented using colons. Apparently that was unhelpful for accessibility, see Template talk:Cfd2#Remove leading colons. I have now amended the CFD templates to include {{Block indent}}, as will be seen when editing new discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Changes were reverted to status quo ante on 23 January. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [talk] 00:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
WP Gender studies
Please, check the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#WP Gender studies. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Renaming all shinto cults from "faith" to "cult
I want to rename all categories in this category Category:Shinto cults from x faith to x cult, because they are about cults of specific deities. I believe calling them "faith" is a mistranslation from google translate, and that it mistakenly implies that something like the Tenjin faith is an independent religion like the Baháʼí Faith, whereas all of these groups are more like Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposed category of American activists against same-sex marriage
Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Input on potential Category:American same-sex marriage opponents or similar, any input is appreciated. Would like to have some sort of rough consensus that such a category is workable before creating it. Apologies for not listing it here originally! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Article and template that could be a category (gardens)
List of garden features and the entirely nonhierarchical template at the bottom of it both look like they might be better as categories. Eyecatchers might also benefit. Of course, subcats in the template and additional information or index images in the list article would also be good, but at the moment both are flat category-like lists. I'm really not fashed about what structure is used, whatever works for the person doing it. I'm posting this here in hopes someone might have a clever (perhaps semi-automated) way to do this sort of thing, as I don't think I'll be doing it. HLHJ (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Speedy rename" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Speedy rename and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Wikipedia:Speedy rename until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
No information about how to request a simple G7 deletion request?
I must be missing something obvious but I can't see how to nominate for speedy deletion two categories that I have just created (due to a misunderstanding of the effect of template:LBE). Could someone point me in the right direction, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CFDS--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really think that I would waste a second of anyone's time by asking here if the answer were on that page? But let's RTFM again:
Determine which speedy criterion applies
Got that one: G7.Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
How is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename? Ok, let's assume that this instruction doesn't apply and ignore it.List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page
So I go to "Current requests" where I findAdd requests for speedy renaming and merging here
. Again, how is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename?
- So do I ignore all instructions and just add it to the same list as speedy renames? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really think that I would waste a second of anyone's time by asking here if the answer were on that page? But let's RTFM again:
- @John Maynard Friedman: WP:G7 provides the answer for deletion: tag the page with {{Db-self}}. WP:CFDS only provides possibilities for renaming and merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. So I have already been informed. My point still stands: WP:CFDS does not contain that information. It should. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Resonant trans-Neptunian objects
I think those categories are misnamed.
- "Category:1:3 resonance" should be "category:1:3 resonance with Neptune"
- "Category:1:4 resonance" should be "category:1:4 resonance with Neptune"
- "Category:1:6 resonance" should be "category:1:6 resonance with Neptune"
- "Category:1:9 resonance" should be "category:1:9 resonance with Neptune"
etc.
There are many other resonances, those categories only apply to resonance with Neptune.
--Io Herodotus (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Io Herodotus: for instructions about how to nominate categories for renaming, see the top of the WP:CFD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Plurals under C2A
Under C2A, the sentence "This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" is awkward. The word "such" seems out of place, and "when the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" seems badly phrased. We know what the distinction is. The issue arises when it might be debatable which of those a particular category is. I propose replacing the sentence with "This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category". Largoplazo (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Closing to "rename" a WP:BADNAC???
Just checking ... since me, a non-admin, cannot edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, closing discussion to "rename/move" is considered a WP:BADNAC??? If so, dang ... no wonder WP:CFD has such a massive backlog. Also, technically, non-admins listing their closes on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is a WP:BADNAC since administrators have to respond to the requests on the talk page for their closes to be listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- ...Seriously, imma bout to start a discussion requesting the protection of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working be reduced to template protection since that level seems to make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: if you have page move rights you do not need Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to close a discussion as rename. Category pages are moved the same way as articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Given that I'm aware of your level of participation at CfD, I'm sure you know that isn't the only task that needs to occur for categories that have members, especially categories that have thousands of members; each page which is a member needs to, in turn, have its category updated. That's one huge AWB-ish task for one editor to perform. In regards to the "BADNAC" concern, common practice seems to be to delete the old name of the category after the old category is emptied, which requires an administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
ANSI and redir cat names?
Some time ago the "ANSI standards" cat was speedied to "American National Standards Institute standards", a name which is used by precisely zero people on the planet earth. Unfortunately, the speedy page has no search function, so I cannot find the discussion of why this occurred.
In any event, to avoid having everyone solve this problem the hard way (a deletion warning on page create), is it reasonable to have a redir for this cat? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Probably because ANSI is a redirect and the main article is at American National Standards Institute. Gonnym (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- But that is not what the standards are called. Even ANSI doesn't call them that. The standards are called "ANSI standard X". Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- But as a descriptive group they are the "American National Standards Institute standards". Looking at the site, almost anytime the name of the organization is used, their full name is used first. Seems the category is in the correct location. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure? about that? Or to save time, one can simply examine the list here, where ANSI and WWW are the only two of many dozens of standards that are spelled out. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- The original rename request can be found here, and was proposed by Armbrust * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can I speedy it back? Or do I have to start a discussion? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The original rename request can be found here, and was proposed by Armbrust * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure? about that? Or to save time, one can simply examine the list here, where ANSI and WWW are the only two of many dozens of standards that are spelled out. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- But as a descriptive group they are the "American National Standards Institute standards". Looking at the site, almost anytime the name of the organization is used, their full name is used first. Seems the category is in the correct location. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- But that is not what the standards are called. Even ANSI doesn't call them that. The standards are called "ANSI standard X". Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The question is how to make a redir. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please try using {{Category redirect}} to create a soft redirect. - Eureka Lott 20:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Still need to fix the original though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Admin backlog
Do we still need the message on top "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators."? I think the table with number of open discussions per month should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Backlog reduction
I've noticed that CFD tends to move way slower than the other CFD proposals, and items often fail to get relisted. Take for instance this nomination. It was relisted on the 18th and has clearly gone stale, as no one else has even looked at it in 15 days. This one has been open since the 15th and should clearly be closed as there is no opposition. It seems like every time I file a CFD, it tends to progress far slower than any other XFD. Does anyone know why they tend to run slower, and what could be done to speed them up? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: I fully share your concern and unfortunately I do not have a remedy. Since a few weeks the situation has stabilized at around 150 discussions eligible for closing, which I am relatively happy with. In the medium long term it goes with ups and downs between 50 to (once) close to 300. Simple fact is that not enough editors are interested in closing CfD discussions, and I have no idea how we can change that. Many thanks to editors who do close lots of these discussions such as User:Fayenatic london and User:Qwerfjkl. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some editors and admins find the guidance at WP:CFDAI daunting, and therefore steer clear of CFD. I must take some responsibility for that, having expanded it over the years, intending it to be useful for reference. User:Pppery therefore took the initiative earlier this year to insert a "Simple version" at the top. However, the XFDcloser tool, which he recommended there, is only partly useful for CFDs (see comments here). I must have another go at simplifying that page. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Context for that "Simple version" is Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#NPOV disputes categories where Liz said
I think there needs to be a "Dummies Guide" to closing CfD discussions because I've read over the instructions several times over the past few years and found them intimidating enough that I never started doing closings
, which I was trying to comply with. I note that she later promised thatIt's on [her] "To Do" list to try to take on some more simple closures next month
and never followed through (next month
refers to February) Poorly-written instructions aside, CfD closing is necessarily more complicated that most other types of discussion closure because implementing the result isn't just making one edit or admin action. TfD, the only other forum with that property, is really only staying above water because most nominations are entirely uncontroversial. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Context for that "Simple version" is Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#NPOV disputes categories where Liz said
- Some editors and admins find the guidance at WP:CFDAI daunting, and therefore steer clear of CFD. I must take some responsibility for that, having expanded it over the years, intending it to be useful for reference. User:Pppery therefore took the initiative earlier this year to insert a "Simple version" at the top. However, the XFDcloser tool, which he recommended there, is only partly useful for CFDs (see comments here). I must have another go at simplifying that page. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know about your "To do" lists but I have some items on mine for several years that I haven't gotten to yet! I see my words as an aspiration, not a promise. And when the project is full of other, more straight-forward work that can keep me very, very busy, taking on an area of the project that I don't understand as well is, well, it is not appealing. But I see from this discussion that new instructions have been attempted and I have also seen some very good closures by non-admins recently so I should probably do my part as well and try to digest the "simpler" instructions. Note: That, too, is an aspiration and hope, not a "promise"! Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london and Pppery: I made an attempt to simplify here: User:Marcocapelle/sandbox2. I haven't really removed a lot of text, but primarily removed/simplified a lot of bulleting, because I think the amount and depth of bullets on the current page is the most intimidating bit of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have also left a notification at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Attempt_to_make_instructions_for_closing_CfD_discussions_better_readable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CFD/W has a backlog issue as well, and isn't linked from a highly visible part of the page. It receives about 1/4 of the pageviews of the main CfD page, and the manual subpage WP:CFD/W/M far less than that; WP:CFD/W/L (CfD closures affecting more than 5000 articles) is not linked from the parent, and has a vast backlog of unchecked, likely completed CfD's. There are two very large categories in Category:Categories needing manual work before deletion, Category:BBC Television shows and Category:Songs written for films, tagged in response to two CfD's from 2020 and 2016, respectively. I would recommend creating a new, highly visible section on the main CfD page which links to pages requiring manual or bot cleanup, like the one at the bottom of WP:TFD; and cleaning up WP:CFD/W and its subpages in a manner that is more accessible. In particular, WP:CFD/W/L should be linked from the main page.Aside from that, I do not see why WP:CFD/W and its subpages (except for WP:CFD/W/M) should be fully protected, since non-admin closures are technically feasible for most CfD's — even delete ones, because a closer could empty the contents before using the {{db-xfd}} tag, as is done at WP:TFD — and most operations at WP:CFD/W/L can also be verified by non-administrators.@Marcocapelle: Do you think we should discuss the proposals advanced in this thread further at WP:VPI, or advertise this discussion there to attract comments? (I don't think it's matured enough to start an RfC or use WP:CENT.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: the reason why WP:CFD/W and its subpages are fully protected is to prevent vandalism.
- CFDW issues instructions to a powerful bot, by which anyone bent on mischief could wreak widespread havoc on the category system. This vulnerability was successfully exploited back in June 2007, as documented at WT:Categories for discussion/Working/Archive 1#Time to protect this page, after which I protected the page.
- This history is publicly summarised in CFDW's logs at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3ACategories+for+discussion%2FWorking and I am disappointed that an editor would propose lowering the protection on any page without checking the history.
- It seems to me that the vulnerability is greater now than it was then, because 15 years later there are a lot more categories and many fewer admins watching CFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Template
User:LaundryPizza03 reverted my bold edit and while it is not a big deal to me I will explain the two underlying reasons anyway:
- The template is really big (it takes the whole screen on my mobile) and it is annoying you have to scroll a lot before getting to even the most basic information what the page is about.
- The table below the template already provides the most important links of the template and it is a more natural order to show the most important links in full first and a link to anything else thereafter. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocappelle: You will have to discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, since this change would logically affect all the XfD pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)