User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive9

Split can go ahead
See CFD nom, which I recently closed. You can go ahead and perform the split you have in mind. Either you can delete the category when you are done or if you are more comfortable with me doing it just let me know and I can delete it when you are ready for that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I did not attempt to prune Category:Film shooting locations, though that would have my full support.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some category discussions that haven't been closed
Hey - correct me if I'm wrong, but are you a CfD admin? There are a couple of discussions that haven't had a response in weeks but that haven't been closed yet, and one in particular I'm waiting on a decision for because of a proposal I was going to make on related categories - Cat:Antisemitic organizations. Could this be either closed or relisted? (There are a few other open but inactive discussions there as well; probably more on other pages.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through and closed a bunch, but not that one. If it remains open, I'll take another look.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

College football head coach categories
Mike, happy new year. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chiming in on this. I now have a CFD open to delete the head coach categories.  Jweiss11 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jewish inventors
I would request for you to reconsider your closing of this CfD: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7. Of the five !keep votes, three seem to be completely disingenuous misreadings of the nomination rationale - stating, as one person did: "This is an ethnic category, quite as much as a religious one." It was stated very clearly in the nomination that the category was to be deleted FOR being an ethnic category as well as a religious category, and it does not say otherwise anywhere. The other two !keep votes essentially say - "Keep because it was kept before" - again, no explicit proof of notability was given and no efforts were made to explain why WP:OCAT does not apply. Considering there is a delete majority and this has been a troublesome category in the past (often revived by SPAs and sockpuppets after deletion or listification), I believe the threshold for delete is being put way too high in this close. All !delete votes explicitly refer to policy while not a single one of the !keep votes do. Bull dog123 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll stand by the closing statement that the discussion leans toward delete but not quite enough. Honestly, I'm not in favor of the category, because I wouldn't be too happy to see my article pop up in Category:Jewish game designers. But my opinions are not enough to overrule what is clearly a lack of consensus on this point. I encourage you to take it to WP:DRV if you think I did something incorrect here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:People by school in London
Did the Category:People by school in London get left out of the recent reorganisation of 'people by school' categories? Coyets (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which recent reorganization you mean. Can you point me to the discussion?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16. Coyets (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that can proposed for speedy renaming to Category:Former pupils by school in London.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Extraneous comment
I think there is an extraneous comment that you probably didn't mean to include in your close of this discussion. I would have just deleted it but I don't like to mess with others' closes at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to have been held over from the Lombardy discussion above. Thanks for the catch.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sportswriters froim Massachusetts
Saw this on my watchlist and hope you're the one to notify. Based on a CFD you closed Clydebot moved articles to the category 'Sportswriters froim Massachusetts'. Your close called for the corectly spelled 'Sportswriters from Massachusetts'. Sure it's an easy fix, but categories aren't something I'm comfortable working with. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that was rather fumble-fingered of me. I will fix pronto.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fix. Made the same typo myself before.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cfm close
I noticed you closed Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_9. Would you check if you think there's consensus to swap for  in ? If there isn't, I'll re-nominate. --Pnm (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely do not think that. is for high-level abstractions, not a specific type of device. I think neither belongs in the main topic category, but if either has to be, I'd put  there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was arguing, too. --Pnm (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed Category:Computers from Category:Main topic classifications, so this should be good to go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my confusion. Computing is an abstraction; computers are a type of device – that's what I thought you meant. I'm not sure whether I think should be removed altogether. --Pnm (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 5
Please fix Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 5 Your additions resulted in the rest of nominations being inaccessible from this page. They are accessible only from the speedy collapse. Hmains (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you Hmains (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Keystone State class crane ship
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keystone State class crane ship, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://medbib.com/Category:Keystone_State_Class_Crane_Ship.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:American basketball players of European descent
Hi Mike, I normally agree with your decisions on nearly everything, but you are way off base regarding. It was highly inappropriate to close it when there was clearly no consensus.--TM 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. On second thought, I unclosed it and entered my opinion as a vote instead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing so. We now agree on nearly everything again :-p--TM 03:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Athletics categories
Hi Mike! There are a whole bunch of things in the air regarding athletics categories, but I just wanted to talk to you about something more specific.

Regarding the "world record holders in athletics" mis-categorisation problem: I think this has just as much to do with the fact that no other world record sub-categories exist here, than it does with linguistic confusion. Take for instance the mis-categorisation of Evil Knievel and weight lifters: if we had a main "Sports world record holders" and a "world record holders in weightlifting" sub-category, then I doubt these mistakes would have happened. I find the Evil Knievel one in particular quite strange, as in my experience Americans don't normally consider motorcycling or rally etc as a form of athletics (as opposed to football or swimming etc).

Do you fancy helping out dissecting the sports record holders to make things clearer? I think this would actually resolve the great majority of the issues arising with the athletics records category. SFB 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a "World record holders in sports" category. This doesn't make "athletics" any more clear, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Premature handling of CFDS requests
I see that at 05:27 UTC on March 7, you processed several CfR speedy requests, some from as late as 23:22 UTC on 5 March. While I think that these all should be speedy renamed, they should have waited until the end of the 48 hours their supposed to be listed, to give users the opertunity to dispute the moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only ones I did that with were "Georgian -> Georgia (country)" moves. I felt the Georgia ones were completely non-controversial, since we had processed about a hundred similar nominations. But since you believe the exact letter of the process is so important, and clearly care enough to spend your time monitoring such things, I will refrain from doing so in the future.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't count on all of them being completely non-controversial; had I thought otherwise, I woulkd have either renamed them directly, or asked the bot to (at CFDW) without going throuh CFDS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I screwed up
Hi, Mike. I made a mistake creating a category: Category:Category:Filipino long-distance runners. Can you let me know what I need to do to fix it? Thanks! Location (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it for you. For future reference, all you need to do is empty the category and tag it with a db-author tag (or db-g7), which means the same thing). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Location (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of Category:Birds extinct since 1500
Speedy renaming to what? It'd be nice to find out so I can finish populating it :) Totnesmartin (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, there's only about fifty thousand categories to page through. :^) It was to Category:Bird extinctions since 1500—that is, the extinctions happened since 1500, not that the birds have been extinct since that year (as so have pterodactyls).--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I agree with the move, I just needed to know the new name. Cheers! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Locomotives of Taiwan
Could you take another look at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 1? Aside from the proposer it looked to me as though there were consensus. Do we really need to do it again to do the reverse and delete Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China? --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely you do. The RoC category was neither tagged or nominated. If you want that reverse-merged, put it up again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China had been marked for merger to Category:Locomotives of Taiwan since 7 February 2011. It was so marked by Icairns at the same time that Category:Locomotives of Taiwan was marked. In accordance with your "absolutely", I completed the listing at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 17. You are being notified, as you closed the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Define the Limit of the the precedant for Executive branches of government.
In the CFD decision of March 11th on the Irish Executive branches of government, can you tell me the limit of the precedent so created? Is is confined to the peculiar situation of Ireland or does it have wider application? In the case of Category:Executive branches of government, is it similarly affected? That is, must all sub-categories and articles that contain the words "executive branch of the government of Foo" be deleted or re-named? If not, why not? If it's not a valid term for Ireland, how can it be valid for other countries? If the forensic examination of Ireland with it's insistance on primary and secondary sources was applied to Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany and Serbia, would they pass the test? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you came to my page, Laurel Lodged. Other countries should be nominated separately, and community consensus should build around them separately. See, that's what CfD does. Something is nominated for change, and consensus is built. The reason I'm talking to you as if you don't understand that is that, as far as I can tell, you don't understand that. Various community members have tried to guide your behavior, even instituting a three-day block against you, and your reaction seems to be that the world is ganging up on you. But it's not. I think everyone would be willing to listen to your arguments if you'd stop instituting changes before putting them up for discussion. But since you're not, you're risking someone like me, who has no stake whatsoever in the Ireland discussion, recommending that a very long ban be imposed upon you. Because quite frankly, I'm getting tired of cleaning up after you. That's the precedent that's been set here. I hope you'll listen this time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So the decision was based, not on the arguments presented, but with a view to making a point - to set a precedent for me? Is that it? But at the same time, I shoudl not believe that "the world is ganging up on" me. Nice one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The decision was made on the merits of the arguments, not anything having to do with you. Everyone--everyone--in the discussion voted against your position, and I reflected that consensus in my close. But that doesn't take away from the fact that your behavior is extremely troubling, and everyone is trying to tell you that. You can either listen, or not listen. But if you don't listen, there may be action taken to remove you from the discussion entirely. It's your choice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Advise
Since you were the one who closed the discussion I'm asking you for advise regarding this proposal. It seemed to me like there is consensus to using the heritage register name. I made a summary to which no one objected. Crusoe8181 repeated it, and no one objected, again. How to you advise this can be taken to consensus? Everyone agrees the current situation is the worst. --Muhandes (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A no consensus is just that: no consensus. Bring up the new proposal as a new discussion, and we'll see if it gains traction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

American inventors and scientists by descent
Hi! Could you please clarify your reasoning on these two discussions which you recently closed as "no consensus"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just that: some deletes, some keeps, some upmerges, no consensus. We could definitely benefit from a discussion about American descent categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. My question was from the perspective that the "delete" and "upmerge" positions were essentially the same (in my mind, deletion was not a viable option because it would have removed articles from the parents), so I can see now the reasoning behind your close.
 * I don't quite agree, however, that a general discussion about all American descent categories is preferable to more focused discussions about individual categories (or small groups of them) since, ultimately, each category should stand or fall on its own: either the intersection is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" or it is not.
 * I will renominate some of the categories with a rationale somewhat different from the one offered by Bulldog123. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan RM close
Hiya Mike. I just wanted to say "thanks" for your close of the WP:RM at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war, yesterday. The rational was excellent, and I applaud your willingness to make a decision in the case.

Don't be too upset about the re-listing. First, it was completely expected by everyone involved. Second, there's absolutely nothing said anywhere (either at WP:RM, or WP:MOVE, or anywhere else that I'm aware of) which says that restarting a move discussion is at all wrong.

Regardless, thanks again for the earlier close. Regards, — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like it was a waste of my time. Regardless, I'm sure someone will come along and close it, and then someone will relist it again, and so on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
... for soliciting closure on the 'Old Fooians' CfD. This discussion has not been one of WP's finest, and I wonder how the process can be improved to avoid such messes in future. By definition, categories affect multiple article pages, but this proposed change will affect tens of thousands of pages. Yet I have been amazed that there has been no significant attempt to seek the views of the actual editors of the underlying schools pages, let alone of the biographers. (Quite the contrary, in fact, as attempts to do so resulted in accusations of votestacking!)

While I appreciate that there are some stalwarts who patrol the CfDs and impose a level of consistency, I feel a strong sympathy for this view. Frankly this is why I tend to avoid the CfD pages and only get involved when there is a subject I feel qualified to engage in. I wonder if we have had a collision of motives? e.g. 'categorists' who prize consistency, versus 'pagists' who see the accurate representation of subject material as being prime. (Obviously there is a tendency for self-selection, with the former feeling more valued in CfDs than the latter.)

So what is required here? Better category MOS? Better notification of proposals? Discussion of such wide-reaching changes on a page where a genuinely representative and less heated discussion can be held? Removal of the adversarial Support/Oppose system with an admin sitting as judge and jury? Or is this simply down to personalities, with a system that can be made to work through the rigorous censure of belligerent editors/administrators who are not prepared to engage in constructive or respectful discussion? Ephebi (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already given my opinion: What is required is for editors who believe we should have obscure and incomprehensible category names  to either give up that position, or be outvoted. I'm not neutral on this. Those "Old (X)ians" categories are an abomination. But regardless of how I feel, somehow the discussion has to be closed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan RM close Part Deux
Heya, just letting you know that the sockpuppetry was handled: Polental/Zhaoni: Sockpuppet_investigations/Paliku/Archive (30 socks!) and SuperblySpiffingPerson/Gadaffipeace: Sockpuppet_investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson/Archive (though it doesn't show if he was that Haoniki person that Wipsenade thought he was, but he was engaged in sock puppetry). =) Oh and thanks for closing the discussion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to. Looks like it'll be a contentious one for some time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is so. These intertubez are filled with drama and even something as seemingly harmless as a Wikipedia title change request can easily fall victim to drama llamas (and honest editors who just want it to conform better to some of the more central rules of the encyclopedia). Hopefully the next one will be the last one until Gadaffi actually falls. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not be upset to see that article eventually renamed Overthrow of Gadaffi, although I would then fear the move requests on the basis of spelling alone.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Libya closure part 3
Why did you feel the need to close the second request having already been the closer of the first? This is hardly standard practice for any Wikipedia process, and the second was clearly filed because your first close was believed to be in error (i.e. that no, "CNN, the Red Cross, and President Obama have all used the term, and that's strong enough for me" is not good enough to show it is the COMMON NAME), and as it's pretty obvious that in contrast to an immediate SNOW / NOTAGAIN reaction, there was infact strong support for that view in the second discussion (and from where I'm standing, nothing "strong" about the oppose arguments at all), I submit to you that your first closure was probably in error, there was everything to gain and nothing to lose for Wikipedia by you letting someone else judge whether that second request was truly a no consensus outcome. While some might think this is a trivial issue, the idea that Wikipedia is not a primary source for such things is about as core a principle as you can get, as important as NPOV and BLP at least. MickMacNee (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And so is finding consensus. If you can find consensus for support in a discussion that has 32 support votes and 43 oppose votes, then you're looking at numbers in a way I didn't learn in school. Sorry, but it didn't matter which admin closed the vote, it wasn't coming up your way. As for your broader claim—if a closer closes one discussion, they can never close another one on the same subject—that's not a guideline I'm familiar with. If it was followed, WP:CFD would probably collapse. I certainly didn't perceive the second move request to be about the merits of my closing arguments; instead, it appeared to be about the merits of the issue at hand. I personally don't care what the article is called, but I do care that the wishes of the community are followed. And here, the wishes of the community are clearly not aligned with wholehearted support of the second move request. Anyway, if you really want to make this about me, bring it up for review on WP:ANI if you're that concerned about any potential breach of practice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I am minded to. I am extremely concerned that you a) seem to think this was an issue to be settled by simple counting, b) that you seem to have utterly missed the point about why you didn't need to be the second closer (not that you as that person are best placed to even appreciate that issue objectively). The joke that is Cfd is hardly relevant in terms of Wikipedia as a primary source. If you can think of 2 Afds or 2 Rfcs on the same subject being closed by the same person, then let's hear it. That's the sort of important process I referred to. As for respecting the wish of the community, that's why we have policies. Frankly, it massively disturbs me that you could even consider some of the people who are in that above tally as part of 'the community'. While we are welcoming to newcomers, it's a complete myth that people who have no clue as to policy get an equal say on what goes on here. And it's generally expected that admins understand this concept of a proper consensus, given their role in determining it. Now, can you this time please give me some actual reassurance that you've understood my concerns, and at least make an attempt to explain your choice to close and your closure in relation to practice, policy, and the particular arguments made, such as where you saw "strong" cases made by opposers. This is the minumum standard expected of admins here, so if you can't, then yes, it's then going to be an issue for ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with MickMacNee's concern. As far as I can tell, there was maybe a single "oppose" !vote that actually followed any principle contained in our Article Title policy.  Everyone who cited and followed WP:COMMONNAME supported the rename, which should say something.  This is a major-news-story article, and all kinds of random people drifted by to give their two cents, but our AT policy is still our AT policy.
 * I was also very surprised to see the same admin closing two consecutive move discussions for the same article. Let me use the numbers another way: they demonstrate a degree of uncertainty in the wake of the previous close that should have induced caution on your part, in my opinion.  Wareh (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did use caution, which is why I closed it as no consensus. If I felt there was a clear consensus, I would have closed it as whatever the consensus was. If I had done only simple vote counting, I could have closed it as keep, which would have meant the burden would have been on the "conflict" supporters to try to overturn that state. But what "no consensus" means is that it can still change from that position based on new information and more votes. But what is happening now is that there is an armed camp that says "It must not be called a civil war!" and another armed camp that says "It must be called a civil war!" There's no scenario where the article has no name at all, so some decision must be made. Under those circumstances, I have no problem whatsoever looking to see how many people are on each side. In discussion one, there was a significant majority in favor of the term "civil war" in some form. In discussion two, there was a majority, but not as big, in favor of the term "civil war." In the inevitable discussion three, maybe there won't be a majority for either side, and it will stay the same. Or maybe by then the news will coalesce around one term. But for now, there is not consensus to change to "conflict."
 * Let me then go back to my original close for the rationale as to why I closed it as "civil war" in the first place. Many reliable sources have called it a civil war: The Telegraph, Time, CNN, ABC News, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Reuters, The Economist, The Seattle Times, and so on. There are some sources that say it's on the brink of civil war: Fox News, NPR, the U.S. State Department, Gaddafi's son, among others. Those sources seem outweighed by the first group. But it is likely that some other term will win out in the press or in the language of the international community. That is what we will likely rename it to.
 * Again, I don't really care what the article is called, and I expect it to change again. But my second close was simply to say, "the majority of editors don't want it to change." It is a very reasonable position, even in the wake of overwhelming support for a change, to ask "Is it against our policies to make that change even if most people want it?" I did that, and in this case, calling it a civil war does not seem to violate those policies. You clearly disagree with that view, and I am perfectly happy to be overturned if the community (or a subcommunity of admins, or whatever) says the article should be renamed on those grounds.
 * Let me finally say this about your concern that I closed the second discussion. At that point, I did not perceive the debate to be about the decision I made, but in fact what decision the community had made. There was a 3:1 majority for calling it a civil war. That's a decisive victory for one side in a discussion. Reading the comments for discussion two, I did not see "Mike Selinker is hopelessly biased!" or "Mike Selinker has no clue about the issue!" or any red flags that would stop me from closing the discussion on the same subject. You have every right to disagree, and if so, it won't be settled on this page. But those are my opinions, based on the read of the arguments presented on the move discussions and my years of closing discussions on Wikipedia. Again, if you think I have done the community wrong, there's a place to take your concerns. Or if you want, I can find another admin, or several, to take a look at the discussions and see if they would come to a different conclusion on discussion two. Would that alleviate your concerns about the propriety of me closing the arguments, and then you can get back to debating the change on the article itself?--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Yes, I would be reassured by further review of the close.  I don't want this to be personal in any way; rather, this is attractive because it can (if you are upheld by "several admins taking a look" as you offer) give the close a more impersonal authority.  I do think there is a lot of focus on numbers in your reasoning, and no mention of policy. WP:UCN is linked from the lead of WP:RM - am I right or wrong to think a move-closer should be looking for the weight of consensus about the most frequent usage in such a case?  If you say wrong, I want to be reassured that more administrators wouldn't say right.  When you write, "an armed camp that says 'It must not be called a civil war!', it seems to me you're describing the kind of !votes that an administrator should ignore on both sides of the question.  I see the alternative as, in effect, "A mob of people who don't care about Wikipedia policies can prevent consensus for any move."  I consider myself pretty experienced and am surprised that the numbers outweighed the rationales and policies in this case (in my view).  But, certainly, I am not an administrator, and if I see that the crowd of administrators you offer to assemble differ with me on this point, I will have learned something about how Wikipedia works.  Wareh (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let me see who I can get to take an impartial look at it. Might take a little while, but I'll get some attention on it. (By the way, if I ignored all the votes that were made passionately, I'm not sure there would have been enough left to judge. This subject has agitated people on all sides, and not surprisingly so.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I appreciate your effort. Wareh (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've pinged User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Timrollpickering, User:Good Olfactory, and User:Kbdank71. We'll see if any of them have anything to say on the subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Outside view 1

 * I've had a look at the discussions, and I admit the history of the two AFDs, the related CFDs, and so forth is a lot of material to go through and to try to digest. First, putting aside the issue of whether the same admin should close both the first and discussions and looking solely at the 2nd discussion in isolation: I am having great difficultly faulting the close of the 2nd discussion as "no consensus". In other words, as someone coming in fresh to the discussion with no real background opinion on the matter, it is very difficult for me to find any consensus in the discussion one way or the other. If this discussion were closed as "rename", I think the close would be equally if not more open to criticism as being a situation where the admin assumed he had a "casting vote" in the situation, which of course is a common complaint at DRV. (I don't think the naming policy issue is so clearcut in this case that what the supporters are proposing necessarily overrides the opinions of a number of opposers.) It was, in a way, a no-win situation for a closing admin, and I think "no consensus" would be the safest close to make in the circumstances.
 * As for whether the same admin should have closed both discussions—in retrospect, probably not—but I am not sure if at the time it was obvious that there was some dispute about the way in which User:Mike Selinker was closing the discussions. I don't think there's any standing policy that a different admin has to close a second move discussion, especially if the admin has not expressed an opinion on the matter elsewhere. Looking back, Mike probably wishes he had not closed the second one, but I don't think it's really a significant issue unless it can be shown through earlier edits Mike has made that he is biased in the matter, and I don't imagine that that could be done. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Maybe my real regret should be the first move, where it seems "civil war" was endorsed because some WP:RS had used it, without any consideration of the term's failure to meet the WP:COMMONNAME standard, "most frequently used." This entrenched a popular name less supported by frequent usages in sources, making it impossible to compromise on what the WP:RS actually use more often.  With one survey of WP:RS still running 1829 to 354 in favor of "conflict" over "civil war," I just want to believe there is some way for WP:AT policy to prevail over a mob of people with non-policy reasons for preferring a minority usage. I'm guessing that it will take a very long cooling-off of this article before we can actually get somewhere with the point, "Shouldn't this article be titled in accordance with the sources' most frequent usage?" Meanwhile consensus (by the standard discussed here) is impossible. Seems excessive to me, but not the worst thing happening on Wikipedia either. I do regret that neither administrator in the discussion so far has acknowledged that many on the "conflict" side were sticking close to WP:AT instead of consulting their personal opinions. At least one "conflict" !vote in the latest move discussion explicitly stated a personal preference for "civil war," overruled by policy. This is why this challenges my faith that policy's validity means anything when faced with a tide of popular interest in a topic like this. Wareh (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I considered all the arguments made. I just did not deem as many of them invalid as you did. Meanwhile, I will suggest that we wait a month and see what the state of the conflict/civil war actually is at that time, and perhaps the right title will be clearer then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion on this question of naming in general is that it is probably just too early to be able to settle on a definitive appropriate name. Things will become much clearer in time, I would suspect. When one is relying almost entirely on contemporary news reports to establish the common name, it can be difficult. The good thing about a "no consensus" close is that it means there will likely be a future nomination for renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What you both say sounds perfectly acceptable to me (as I hope was clear enough from my previous comment). Wareh (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The situation from reliable sources is as clear as day right now, as it was when the vote occured, and as it will be in a month's time, barring a major escalation. The top reliable news result right now for 'Libya civil war' is from NPR, for 'Libya conflict', it's Reuters. Even on that spot sample it's a walkover in terms of what's more authorative. Major organisations like the BBC, and a clear majority of other serious news organisations, are still not calling this a civil war, yet for reasons still not explicitly detailed here by either Mike or you, Wikipedia still is. Am I just not saying it right above? Can either of you please just give an example (i.e. a diff) of what kind of oppose opinion has actually been given equal weight by either of you in that vote, in order to come out with 'no consensus' outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's a fairly common comment in this discussion: "Support Whether or not Google has caught up, this meets the criteria for a civil war. Opposing military forces, both of which are based in Libya and both of which answer to governments who claim control of the country, are engaging in open warfare both urban and rural. Casualty figures have surged over 10,000 according to some estimates. Battles are being waged, towns have fallen to one side, then the other, then back, then back again. The country is geopolitically divided. There's little question this meets the definition of a war - yet the primary factions are both Libyan in origin and have no allegiance to a foreign power. That makes it a civil war. This change, in my opinion, is long overdue. -Kudzu1 (talk)" I understand you don't agree, but that was a very commonly stated opinion. I think there's been enough discussion on my page about whether I should have thrown out the majority opinion. I didn't, and you don't agree, so let's move on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can tell I'm in a docile mood above, but I have to say I'm disappointed with this reply. "It meets the definition" is absolutely irrelevant under Wikipedia policy - both the poster's opinion that it is so, and even the question of whether it actually does! It meets the definition of "conflict" too, but I'd be too embarrassed to offer that as a reason for the WP:AT.  If you really think such comments are equally valid !votes as those who made a discernible effort to claim which name is "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources," then I do believe you are guilty of ignoring WP:AT's basic principles. Wareh (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. I think this discussion is becoming circular, so it should end here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As I suspected then, you haven't properly weighted the opinions at all. The example you give above is 100% unadulterated Original Research, and as such, it mattered not if 1 or a 100 people expressed it as an opinion - in terms of grades of invalidity it's barely 1 step up from an ILIKEIT, and certainly light years away from someone referencing COMMON NAME and RS's. With this error you've turned Wikipedia into a primary source, rather than a tertiary source. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why is the substantive debate continuing on here? Once the close has occurred and an admin has responded to some initial queries and it is evident that he's not going to change the close, what's the point besides trying to "score points"? I don't want to tell anyone what to discuss, but at this stage to me it doesn't look like it's productive. It just seems to be riling people up again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't consider anything but the last comment as a proper response to my initial request, that's why the discussion on my part continued until it was forthcoming. And my reply to that post is the last I have to say on the matter on this talk page, if he wishes to shut it down as an issue, as it appears he does. I was not seeking to 'score points', only to find out exactly how he came to this decision, and once I did, to make it crystal clear to him that whether he appreciates it or not, that he's made a mistake, and how/why. He's now free to ignore us, self-reflect and correct his own error, or if he falls somewhere between the two extremes, go seek some more generic peer-review to get some assurance he's still Doing It Right, or judgement as to whether he's always been Doing It Wrong (I'm certainly not going to start looking through his history to see if this is a pattern though). I may or may not try and get this specific error corrected in light of the above and make Wikipedia suck less as a an authorative tertiary source (but mileage sadly varies when the admin declares they did nothing wrong and it's seen by other admins as 'just' a content error, rather than a behavioural issue), but if I do Mike can rest assured he'll be notified. I don't think it rises to the level of an arbitration case, so he can breathe easy \0/ . MickMacNee (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to "shut it down." I just have nothing else to say, and certainly nothing that will satisfy you. I don't feel I made a mistake, and I believe I've heard you when you say I have. I am not ignoring you. I'm simply not changing my close to be the one you want, because I don't agree with your argument. Can we end the discussion here, and return discussions of the page move to the article's talk page where it belongs, please?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit on Richard B. Garnett
Garnett died a Confederate, so your recat seems ill considered (or perhaps inadvertent). Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I'm doing a lot of recategorizing in this category, and I just slipped on one. Thanks for the catch.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Groovy. You're quick, too. BusterD (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Professional associations in Australia
You have listed this at CfD, but I can not find the discussion. Am I being blind early in the morning? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. I put it into a group nomination, but the XFD tool in Custom regex doesn't allow me to indicate the name of a multiple-category nomination. You'll find it at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_9.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is a good nomination and I have just supported it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

CFD retain bot
Cydebot has a new task that I figured you might find helpful when you're closing CFDs. Let me know if anything breaks. -- Cyde Weys 20:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one fab idea. I'll let you know what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alabama A&amp;M University
Category:Alabama A&amp;M University, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals
As a user who participated in Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Medieval Islam" science categories
The consensus reached last month was to keep and rename the categories to "X in medieval Islam" (see here). While it seems that this has satisfied most of the editors working on Islamic science articles, we now have uninvolved editors, clueless about the temporal and geographical meaning of "medieval Islam", repeatedly requesting the deletion of these categories, claiming that it's part of an agenda. I thought you might want to follow up on that since you are familiar with the lengthy discussions we already had on this issue.

Please see:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 19
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 6

Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adam &amp; the Ants members
Category:Adam &amp; the Ants members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam
Following the result of the discussion on the above, the category Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam still needs to be upmerged into Category:Medieval Persian physicians. Davshul (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, waiting for someone to attend to it. Feel free to do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The delete proposal header was removed from all related categories but Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. Are there any discussion threads I'm not aware of ? Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one else seemed interested in closing it, I closed this discussion as a continuation of my earlier close of the one for Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam. There's clearly room for more discussion in this regard, though. I encourage you to continue to bring up these points.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian SIAs
Hi there! On your most recent closure of this cat, I am curious why you believe it's more important for the category to "match its parent" instead of the actual article? Also, Category:Populated places in Russia isn't really this cat's parent; Category:Set indices on populated places by country is, and that one, along with every of its subcats except Russia's, was created by the nominator solely to make it look as if there is naming consistency where none existed before. I am not yet asking you to reconsider the closure at this point, but I would certainly appreciate hearing your take on this. If category naming consistency was your only reason, it seems rather tenuous to me. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2011; 13:15 (UTC)
 * Because we don't have a category called Category:Inhabited localities in Russia any more. What we do have isCategory:Populated places in Russia, and its subcategories Category:Rural localities in Russia andCategory:Urban-type settlements in Russia. If you want to do a set index category for the latter two, those might well survive a CfD. But the article is just a catchall, and not the catchall that passedthe last category discussion on this subject just three weeks ago.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you haven't really answered my question. What makes you say that the set index cat is a child of the "populated places" cat? The SIA cat groups the articles based on the terminology used by the appropriate article, and that it may, as a matter of convenience, be placed under the general "populated places" cat is secondary. I guess my question is why you think the category naming conventions should trump the terminology used in the articles. I've always been under the impression that category names are article-driven, and it is only when a category serves a generic purpose (such as "populated places in wherever") that we may give it a generic name? The name of the SIA cat in question should be driven by the terminology prevailing in the field of knowledge it categorizes, not by some upper-level generic name a bunch of Wikipedians came up with elsewhere, no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2011; 15:43 (UTC)
 * Because it is a child of Category:Populated places in Russia. This is a category, and should use the terminology of the category system. The July 2 discussion deemed the phrase "inhabited localities" as inappropriate for the category system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only intent of the CfD discussion you've linked to was to rename one category the name of which did not match the names of other categories across the same horizontal hierarchy, and even that was a questionable closure because the category is based on an article, and "concordance of category and article naming" is actually a CfD speedy criteria C2D (and renaming the article merely to suit a category name would be a ridiculous proposition). I am not going to request that closure's review, however, because its result makes navigating the cats in the horizontal hierarchy more convenient to readers, but automatically carrying that logic over to any of the subcategories, as you did with the SIA cat, is more of a stretch, don't you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
 * I think I've explained my rationale a couple times here. I understand that you don't agree with it, but I don't think my perspective is likely to change. Feel free to take it to WP:DRV if you want to hash it out in a more public place.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you haven't explained anything; you've just kept repeating the summary of the closing statement to me, wording it slightly differently each time. Understanding your rationale behind that closure is exactly the thing I was hoping to hear. This thread is not just about a disagreement with your decision; it is about a disagreement with the reasoning behind your decision, the reasoning which you for some reason are unwilling to explain. Mind you, I'm not asking you to agree with me here; I'm merely asking to explain why the things I've mentioned should not change your opinion or why you are reluctant to address them. Can you do that little before you shove me off to DRV for good?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2011; 17:13 (UTC)
 * Really, seriously, I'm trying to explain it. There's a global agreement on the terminology "populated places." In Russia there are some things called "rural localities" and "urban-type settlements." In the last discussion, the catchall "inhabited localities" was judged and found wanting. If it had been endorsed there, it would have influenced my decision in this case. It was not, and so it did not. The special nature of the set-index category does not derive from the article name, but from the concept. So no special terminology was required there. There wasn't any justification I could find for keeping an outlier name here. So I didn't. Does that explain my reasoning better?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thank you. The last thing I wanted to clarify is that you disagree that the arguments I've given in this thread can be seen as justification, right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 18:39 (UTC)
 * I would say they were not so compelling that they made me override other arguments.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why you think that sticking to encyclopedic terminology is not as compelling as sticking to arbitrarily chosen terminology used to title our generic categories, but thanks for your explanations and patience nevertheless. I appreciate you taking time to respond. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 19:08 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking it out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Spinners members
Category:The Spinners members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did you keep the notion that the consenssus was to "not rename" the Category:American people of Italian-Jewish descent and its sibblings
Where did you get the idea to not rename? Not one person expressed a desire to not rename in the main discussion. The previous discussions are 100% flawed because they failed to deal with the specific rules of who we put in the category People of Jewish descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I personally think your wording is better than the current wording. But that wasn't relevant to the close. The previous discussion was decisively against your wording, taking place only eight months ago. Those opinions in that discussion still count; they do not have to be reiterated to matter. As for this discussion, Davshul did not agree with your rename, proposing a different (and redundant) scheme, and Mayumashu supported him. Carlossuarez46 voted to delete the whole tree. No one supported your rename. That said, your point that everyone wanted some change is significant. I will change my close to "No consensus to rename to a particular scheme." My advice is to go back to the group, see if you can get one scheme that you all agree on, and then post a new debate on the categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for UK schools
In the RFC for naming of by school student related categories, you say "We're listening to what UK editors say and adjusting accordingly." However in arecent discussion there were 2 UK editors in favour of the proposal and 3 Uk editors against. It was actually one of your proposals and it was supported by 3 other Americans. On that basis an American administrator closed the discussion in favour of the proposal, despite the fact that a majority of UK editors were against it. Is this listening to UK editors? I have no wish to single you out on this but you do seem to the one American editor who has expressed some sympathy on this matter. Cjc13 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bduke is from Sheffield, UK, I am also from Sheffield, and Timrollpickering is an 'Old Citizen' (ie a Londoner). Further, the 'oppose' votes in that cfd were the result of canvassing and can accordingly be disregarded. Occuli (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with people outside the UK getting involved in a CfD to discuss a UK topic, if they are knowledgeable about the subject. But I do have a problem if people with no understanding of the issue appear to hold a "casting vote". But these CfDs surely aren't solely about the number of 'votes'? WP admins should care more about the quality of the argument and should close a vote based on that, not the numbers of votes cast. Otherwise we will end up with some pretty odd results. MS has normally been pretty good about that. Surely in this case the only logical response is to conclude that there was no clear consensus between the participants, and refer the topic for relisting when the Schools RFC gets sorted. Indeed, this is what has happened with identical cases in the later discussionsEphebi (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Occuli for your correction about Timrollpickering, so it was 3-3 among UK editors in the discussion to which I referred. It is still the fact that it was the votes of the American editors that was the deciding factor. As for the canvassing, I was not involved in that if it took place. I am aware that Timrollpickering has been in discussion with other editors about various proposals which could be considered as canvassing. Part of the problem is the lack of participants in the discussion, so involvement should be encouraged not discouraged. There does seem to be a lack of notification, so there are for instances discussions about schools in Scotland and Wales without any invovlement from anybody from those countries. Cjc13(talk) 14:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed Cjc13 you are correct about the failure to notify affected users who may have a valid expert opinion.Wikipedia:Cfd recommends that the affected articles' talk pages are flagged. "Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand". Says it all, really.Ephebi (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I'm being asked to do here. I am hardly neutral on this: I want the "Old (X)" categories deleted and salted, and would prefer "Alumni" for all such categories. But I'm also not deaf to concerns. It's very clear from what I'm hearing that alumni, students, and pupils all don't work for UK categories. So I don't support any of those being forced on the UK categories. I do support a single standard inside each country category, and "People educated at" seems the least problematic to me. I don't think my Americanness invalidates that opinion, and I don't think anyone else's Americanness invalidates theirs. What are you asking me to do?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. It was just meant to be a personal enquiry regarding your statement that "We're listening to what UK editors say and adjusting accordingly." This recent discussion seemed to indicate that this was not the case. I just felt you and other American editors were listening to the views of a few UK editors who were not necessarily representative of the views of UK editors as a whole.Cjc13 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I've listened to all views, some (on all sides) repeated many, many times. As for other people, you should ask them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your position. It was just that you used "We" in the earlier statement. Cjc13 (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd say all declarations about editors based on their country of origin should be handled with care.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

curious about Category:WikiProject Bodybuilding Members
The userbox for WikiProject Bodybuilding creates this category, but I see it was deleted way back. There's no link at Category:WikiProject Bodybuilding Members to the Cfd discussion. (I guess linking that on deleted categories is new?) So I was curious what the reasoning was. Cloveapple (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You will have to refresh my memory, for I don't remember this at all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like it's my mistake. I saw Category:WikiProject Bodybuilding Members as a redlink on a user page, followed it & saw you'd deleted it ages ago. What I didn't notice was that it got deleted for being mis-capitalized and has been replaced by the correctly capitalized version. So everything's ok and I have no question. Cloveapple (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool beans.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Neil Young and Crazy Horse members
Category:Neil Young and Crazy Horse members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on "St" vs "St." in alumni rename
This has come up for churches in spades. Consensus there appears to be that we use default sort with 'Saint'. This seems to be accepted universally except in the UK where some editors want the default sort to be by city! Vegaswikian(talk) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest an act of parliament to resolve this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they get more done then congress? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we confident that we want this Congress to get more done?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK Parliament generally gets through stuff quite well - most Brits I spoke to looked at the budget/debt threshold gridlock in Congress with absolute astonishment that such a thing could be allowed to happen. However time constraints limit what gets proposed and a debate on "St vs St." would also have to face media ridicule and political opposition to the idea of regulating the language - many would especially oppose such a French idea. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the News of the World will get right on that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not likely - they folded last month. And it's more the sort of thing the Mail or Express runs with - the NotW would be more interested in who was bonking who. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Uh, yeah, I kinda know all that. Just making a joke.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Humour doesn't cross the Atlantic well... Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, they don't even know how to spell humor on the other side of the pond. ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"People who attended Cheltenham Ladies' College"
Don't you mean "People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College"? It's probably best not to switch one outlier to another.Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dumb. I will fix.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

== Per your !votehere==

Please seehereThanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Mad (magazine) people
Category:Mad (magazine) people, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Pretenders members
Category:The Pretenders members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Western mystics diffusion
Okay I already did a little, but I'm not exactly an expert. I don't want to sound rude, but is it incumbent upon me to diffuse it? I will if necessary, but I'm afraid that I might be too ignorant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Pine Valley (All My Children) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pine Valley (All My Children) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pine Valley (All My Children) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

CfDs
As the creator of the two categories in question, I'm alerting you toCategories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_25. Thanks,Jrcla2 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Second Sino-Japanese War photographs
Category:Second Sino-Japanese War photographs, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenated categories change
If I'm not mistaken, for this change to be implemented, we're kind of going to have to change all of them at once or none of them, because they are populated to a large extent via template application. The hyphens in the template need to be changed to en dashes, and then all the parent categories for all the categories will be changed automatically. It will be difficult to do this bit-by-bit without really messing things up badly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's how I think it goes:
 * I change all the templates to move most of the contents.
 * A bot copies all the categories, adding the en-dashes, and creates the new categories.
 * The same bot creates the redirects out of the old categories.
 * So what we need is a bot owner who can do that. Any suggestions?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whenever I'm looking for an amazing bot that can do anything, I always turn to User:R'n'B and his Russbot. He seems quite good at getting it to do weird, specialized tasks. You might check with him. I'm not sure though if he would need a list of the categories that are affected or if the bot can seek them out somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft cats
I appreciate we have different views about the use of hyphens but the CfD came to the conclusion to rename the aircraft categories, not happy with it but that was the consensus, you original stated in your proposal that redirects would be created from the old versions. The bot has renamed everything but redirects have not been created, anything you can do to rectify that would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted the following note at the closer's talk page, but I see the issue has already been raised here. "Hi, I think the decision of this CFD should have been Rename and leave redirects, as requested by the nominator, instead it was simply Rename. This has left certain linked categories as redlinks and broken or split some of the aircraft category structures. For example, seeCategory:German_aircraft_1920–1929 and Category:German_aircraft_1920-1929 and Category:United States military trainer aircraft 1920-1929. What is the best way of fixing this? Move the straggler articles to the new categories and then create redirects? I'll copy this note to the nominator's talk page." -84user (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll start seeing what can be done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An update: After a category-by-category search, all the categories have been renamed, as far as I can tell. Now to find some way of creating 2,296 redirects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All categories have redirects now, thanks to Russbot.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your efforts with this. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CfD
Mike, did you mean "merge" rather than "rename,". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at
-SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving categories
Hi, Mike. When you move categories (or delete categories that have been moved), you should make sure the interwiki links from at least one other language lead to the correct category. With Category:Culture of India, no other languages linked to the correct category, so when the category they linked to was deleted the interiwki bots (in this case mine, could have been anyone's) didn't find the new one, and removed the links to English instead of changing it to the correct link. Just a heads-up for future cases. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't control what Cydebot leaves behind, I'm afraid. Not sure what else I can do here.--Mike Selinker(talk) 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should go to the category it was moved to, and go to a random interlanguage link, and check if the link that goes back to English points to the right place. If it doesn't change it. One place is enough, the bots will do the rest; but it is important that there is at least one correct link to the new category, if not the bots will not find it. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Iowa Stars
Category:Iowa Stars, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Decision on service awards
Mike, I was impressed by your decision on Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 2. You raised a point no one else had thought of, and it was a clincher. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Just because I find those names a bit twee (okay, a lot) is no reason to say "the category system is off limits for you." I am, however, particularly unimpressed with the fact that every single template has to be modified individually. Feel like helping with that, or getting some award recipients to do so?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think just the templates have to be changed. I'm starting to do that. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence
Hi Mike. As a frequent closer of contentious CfDs, would you be willing to close the RfC at Category talk:Anti-abortion violence? The request at Administrators' noticeboard has been unaddressed for over a week. I am not involved in the RfC, have not read the discussion, and only found it through the request at WP:AN, so I do not believe it is improper for me to ask you directly on your talk page to review and close the RfC. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Very interesting argument.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing, but I'm not sure how you got a "no consensus" out of four yeses, two non-votes and a very loud non-policy-based no. –Roscelese (talk &sdot;contribs) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also readthe NPOVN page, on which there were quite a few more objections, some of which I cited in my closing argument.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't come out to consensus not to use it, and if you pay attention to which arguments are policy-based and cite sources, the consensus to use it is even stronger. The arguments against using it may be convincing to certain individuals, but that's all they are - arguments. The users in favor of it are the only ones who have bothered to cite sources, and no one has provided any reason why the sources are not good. –Roscelese (talk &sdot;contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have heard and understood your opinion. I just don't agree with it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a DRV-like process that would be appropriate now? –Roscelese (talk&sdot; contribs) 17:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what the process is for review of a non-deletion discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike, thank you for closing this difficult debate. I have little experience with the categories so cannot assess whether the close accurately assessed the consensus. Roscelese, when RfC closures are contested, they are usually reviewed at WP:AN.Cunard (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oy. Is it in otherwise standard DRV format, viz. "this is why I think the closer was wrong," and other users endorse or suggest overturning? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a review at AN in the standard DRV format. I've seen contested moves there: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227 and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226. Neither of them were in the "endorse/overturn" format. However, I see no reason that would bar you from setting up a discussion at AN in the DRV format. I think the community would be receptive to that. Mike, would you agree to have your close reviewed at AN in the DRV format? Cunard (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I recommend a format like the following (which is adapted from Deletion review/Discussions):

==Header==


 * Category:Anti-abortion violence (|talk| [ edit] | [ history] | [logs] |links) (NPOVN|RfC)

's closure of Category talk:Anti-abortion violence as do not subcategorize Category talk:Anti-abortion violence to Category:Christian terrorism was contested by.

'''Note:

They agreed to bring the closure to the administrators' noticeboard for community review using the following review format (adapted from Deletion review/Discussions):

===Nomination statement===

I contest the closure of Category talk:Anti-abortion violence because...

===Discussion===
 * Overturn [reasoning]
 * Endorse [reasoning]

Mike and Roscelese, feel free to tweak this as necessary. After taking a look at the review format, please state below whether you agree with opening a discussion review at the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't need to agree for this to happen, but I have no objection to it whatsoever. Someone needed to close the discussion, and I've done that. If someone else decides to overturn it, that's cool too. I do recommend that the discussion reference both the RFC and the NPOVN discussion, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is no established process for reviewing RfC closures, it is best that the closer assents to the novel review format. Thank you for the NPOVN suggestion, which I've implemented as a footnote. Does that suffice? Cunard(talk) 05:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks super. I'll post that sooner or later. –Roscelese (talk &sdot;contribs) 05:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan
Hi. I don't think we should rename the cat. Many of these works are not "based" on a G&S work, but only "inspired" by it. That is, their story is not derived from the story of the G&S work, but may instead be based on the lives of G&S or other people connected with Gilbert and Sullivan works, or it may be inspired by a famous phrase or line from G&S, etc. So, I think the current cat name is perfect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Please make this point on the CfD page so that others can hear it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not at the CfD page. Does it take time for it to appear?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in this global nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
Why in the world would you just go and revert so many of why revisions? If you wanted to add a category to the articles, then do!!!! BUT DON"T JUST ERASE ALL THE OTHER REVISIONS I MADE IN THE ARTICLES. JUST ADD THE CATEGORY INSTEAD OF MESSING WITH AN AREA OF ARTICLES WHICH I AM MORE FAMILIAR WITH THAT YOU.

YOU ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND UN-DO AND THE EDITS YOU MADE ON MY INLINE SKATING PAGES. IF YOU WANT TO ADD THE CATEGORY YOU SHOULD DO THAT
 * I didn't mean to delete non-category based changes, but because you deleted all the categories without putting them up for CfD evaluation first, there was likely to be some collateral damage. Feel free to put back the material that was erroneously removed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO FIX YOUR MISTAKES??? YOU ERRONEOUSLY REMOVED IT, SO YOU SHOULD PUT IT BACK TOO
 * First, please stop typing in all-caps if you want my attention. Second, I have gone through all of my changes and found only one article, Arlo Eisenberg, where I made any non-category changes. I have reverted that one to your last version, minus the category adjustments you made. As for those, I'm not changing the decision I madein the CfD nomination, which was to put all the category changes back to where they were and start over. By emptying and deleting categories without gaining consensus, you made a complete hash of the category system around skaters. You can start adding categories to articles again as you like, but please don't remove categories en masse without gaining consensus first, or this will happen again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Category redirect task
All done, except that I did not create redirects to target categories that do not exist. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like some got deleted as empty in the time between when I created that list and when you made the redirects. Anyway, thanks so much for your help. I really appreciate it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Regarding Category talk:Anti-abortion violence and the above discussion, has started an RfC close review at Administrators' noticeboard. Best, Cunard (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those SFBA cats in "Working"
Apparently there's something in the system that kept a lot of the tagged talk pages for the recently speedy-renamed "SFBA" cats from changing to the new cat names, despite the cat in the template being properly targeted and the cats on the talk pages themselves displaying correctly. Perfoming null edits on the pages in question rests them to the correct target. I did a bunch but it's downright tedious... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure it's not just a time delay? Talk pages cycle slower than mainpages, right?--Mike Selinker(talk) 14:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I wasn't aware of that. Could be? Annoying either way! ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 16:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Change of Category:People associated with Dalkey to Category:People from Dalkey
Hi Mike,

Sorry to bother you but following the above CfD which you close, Cydebot automatically transferred all pages in to. Unfortunately this meant that in at least one case, Brian O'Nolan, someone who was indeed associated with Dalkey (he wrote a novel set there) was incorrectly categorized as being from Dalkey. Is it possible to get Cydebot to revert its changes of these categories until someone can check the relevant pages manually? (Cydebot's talk page has instructions not to query these cases there but to check a page called WP:CFDW to find the appropriate person to ask. However I can't at all work out how to find the relevant information on that page/page history so I hoped as the closing admin you would know).

Thanks.

ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for a reversion. This was part of a simple close, and very rarely things get categorized incorrectly in such a process. Just go through and delete the category off on any article that it doesn't belong on. Of the ones in the category now, all butThe Edge, Mick Holden, Eddie Irvine, and Francis Martin O'Donnell state that the person lived in Dalkey for a time. So if any of those are not from Dalkey at any point in their lives, please remove them from the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit too busy right at the moment, I think a reversion until I or someone else has time to sort it out would be better (unless you want to do it yourself, of course!). I don't think it's guaranteed that there would be few miscategorizations in this particular case, because the two titles mean quite different things. Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands.ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A reversion is also work, and I'm not going to ask for one. I've checked sources to confirm The Edge and Eddie Irvine lived in Dalkey. I can't quite confirm Holden and O'Donnell, so I'm removing them from the category. I think everything's fine now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, lads: O'Donnell is listed as one of 18 shareholders of the Vico Rock Property Management Co. Ltd, which owns 18 townhouses/apartments above Sorrento Road, and overlooking Sorrento Terrace and Dalkey Island. He was the first investor there, back in 1987, and still owns the townhouse directly above Sorrento Terrace, built on the site of the former Khyber Pass Hotel, later know as the Killiney Heights Hotel.Tricky (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in he goes, then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Owning a property in Dalkey is by no means the same as being from Dalkey, though, is it? The article merely says he is from Dublin, without giving any further details as to place of birth or upbringing.ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not clear. This aspect of categorizing people has always been a bit fuzzy, falling frequently into "you know it when you see it." I think it's safe to say that George Clooney is not from Lake Como, Italy, even though he owns a place there. So use that as a guide, I guess.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you need to also exclude Lisa Stansfield (nor from Dalkey, but once had a residence there), Neil Jordan (lives there but not from Dalkey), Van Morrison (moved out, and wasn't from Dalkey), Enya (actually lives in Killiney, not Dalkey), and probably some others.86.44.97.178 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence was reopened after a review atAdministrators' noticeboard/Archive228. I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26 to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jurors of the International Chopin Competition
Hello Mike! I need your help. You have removed the important Category:Jurors of the International Chopin Competition, see discussion: Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 27. Did you have a chance to read the discussion and my arguments? If not please do read. Now for example the featured article Witold Lutoslawski (who was one of the great XX century composers) does not contain reference to the List of Jurors. Folks didn't provide any logical reasons for deletion and didn't give any response to my arguments. Hardly such "discussion" can be considered as a base for any decision. I would like to know your opinion. Thank you! With best regards, Semimartingale (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely read and considered it. However, as the closer, my opinion isn't that important. Your logic didn't convince the others, and since I could not find a supporting set of categories in the system already, it didn't convince me either. I suggest turning the category into a list and seeing if it fares better.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike! Thank you for your response! Again, the problem is that without the category many articles do not have direct link to the List of Jurors (equivalent to information loss!). So a researcher doesn't see for example that Yakov Zak was a winner and a juror, what might be important for comperative studies. Don't you think that the reasoning that the folks provided was close to something like - let's delete the index from the book, because the book contains such information anyway? Now to restore the missing links somebody needs to go through all the personalia and to add direct links to the List of Jurors. Or maybe I am missing something? I am a busy professional and I don't have much time to spend. In my view it would be a lot easier to keep the category (raison d'être!) or maybe to have more time for the discussion to find a solution. Regards,Semimartingale (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think there's much of a case here. We don't have any other prize jurors categories, and I don't think this is likely to gain consensus that it should be the first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike, I definitely respect your opinion, but we had a different reason for nomination.Semimartingale (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. WP:DRV exists if you want to take the case to a broader field.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians who use Opera
Category:Wikipedians who use Opera, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Architects who committed suicide
Category:Architects who committed suicide, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Help!
Somebody got their own bot (User:Hazard-Bot) approved on a trial basis for moving closed CfDs and turned it loose on the CFDS page, moving categories before the 48 hour clock ran out and without attribution when creating the new categories. I've reverted the removal of the cats from the CFDS page, and I believe we need to undo the erronious edits, delete the "new" cats, and let CydeBot run as normal - help restoring the articles back to their original categories would be appreciated, thanks. -The Bushranger One ping only21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How distressing. My solution would be to keep the listings, note what happened, and then if someone actually objects to a particular nomination, revert that one. No sense putting something back that we're just gonna redo tomorrow.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True - I figured out how to get the attribution in the cats as well. Thanks. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming
When you rename a category, as you did for Category:College sports infobox templates, it would be very helpful if you would note in the deletion summary what the category was renamed to. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Racine Raiders for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racine Raiders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Racine Raiders (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Paul McDonald(talk) 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Chicago Fire
Category:Chicago Fire, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Missions to Asteroids category
I think this was actually supposed to be Category:Missions to minor planets? - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to include the rationale for that part. I left it as asteroids because there seemed to be a lack of agreement on that point. Feel free to nominate the asteroids category for renaming on its own.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Missions to asteroids
Category:Missions to asteroids, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Query
Could you possibly close Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 21? I withdrew the nom after some good work by others populating the cats involved, and there are no non-keep !votes, but it's still open. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and Merry Christmas! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing says Christmas like hand grenades, sez me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)