Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Cocktails (expand)

Category:Cocktails (expand)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted. the wub "?!"  00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) This is the category created by the above mentioned cocktail-expand template ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Ready for deletion now. Thanks for waiting. --Willscrlt 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until 08:00 UTC January 7, 2007 so I can create a project to do list, then delete. DENY - As stated above, these are not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here.
 * If there is a better way to meet our goals and fall within established guidelines, please advise me. Then please give me time or help us swap out the currently marked articles to the new method so we can be within compliance.
 * Thank you for your consideration. --Willscrlt 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are far better ways to do this sort of thing, Willscrlt. Have a look at the coffee-coloured boxes on Talk:Flying (song), or Talk: Michael Smither, or Talk:Pentane. These are the sort of assessment boxes normally used by WikiProjects that want to rate their articles as to whether they need expansion or not. This standardised system makes far more sense than inventing several new grades of stub for one stand-alone WikiProject. Grutness...wha?  00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions Grutness. That is actually part of the solution I suggested at User talk:Amalas. Unfortunately, that link appears not to have been brought over with this twice-moved nomination. A few questions (since this is my first time through one of these procedures):
 * How much time do I have to implement a new system that falls within the guidelines? I have not created a parser template yet, and they do look like they have a bit of a learning curve. I'm a fairly experienced PHP and VB programmer, so it should only take a few days to develop something like the Talk:Pentane, maybe a few weeks for something more advanced like Talk:Flying (song). That is something I wanted to do once I saw the other WikiProjects doing that. I just have already made commitments to complete the cleanup project by the end of February in some AfD discussions. I can't afford the time it would take to stop cleanup to fix templates, nor can I afford the time of having the articles that have already been classified either lose their classification or be thrown into the large stubs category. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 * If not much time, what happens to the articles that are current marked as "expands"? Would they just be left as regular articles with no indication of their less than acceptable nature? Or would be be listed as stubs, which would add to the confusion when the micro-stubs also get mixed in there? Pretty soon, the stub designation will be practically meaningless, which is the reason I created the two variations in the first place. It has been a lot of hard work to get things organized and useful. It may not have been the right or best solution, but it has become a very effective one for our efforts right now. I really, really would hate to have a generally accepted guideline steer a lot of work off and down a bumpy road just for the sake of enforcing a guideline at this exact point in time, when if we could be given until the end of Feb (the same time the cleanup project is expected to end), or a little extra time (to develop the new templates), we could incorporate elimination of the contentious categories and templates into our cleanup project.
 * If that is not possible, and if enforcement of guidelines is more important than helping concerned Wikipedians work through a faux pas, then is there anyone willing to help out to (1) develop or clone a template for the WikiProject that we could use to quickly re-tag the offensively tagged articles with proper ratings before we lose the information we have worked hard to organize, and (2) help re-tag the articles. Thanks. --Willscrlt 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The best solution might well be to make a temporary subpage of your user page (or of your WikiProject page) and list the articles ther, with appropriate headings as to their status, while you work on the talk page template. That would still give you an active list of articles to work on. Another option would be to simply make a temporary simple template for the talk pages and add it where necessary without substing, then fix up to a full parser form later and replace the simple form with that. Grutness...wha?  03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Grutness, you are the good idea man, aren't you? :-D Naturally I read this after I just edited the stub discussion, otherwise I would have included this in that discussion. Oh well. The moving it to a personal page or Vegaswikian's suggestion of a Project work list should be fine. Since I have created a proper to-do list for the Project now (we never had one before, imagine that!), and I can add these to that. I should be able to complete that within a day. Then I suppose I will get to try out AWB for the first time (that makes me a little nervous), and remove the templates from each article. That is okay to do while this is under discussion, right? I mean, I don't want to get into trouble for breaking more rules while trying to fix the mess that got us here. :-)
 * You didn't answer the question of how long one of these deletion discussions usually runs. Just for future reference (not that I hope to ever have to go through one again, ugh). --Willscrlt 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually about a week for CFD and TFD, I think - with SFD, if there'san alternative soluution suggested, things wait at the botom of the page until it's been carried out (within reason, of course). Grutness...wha?  22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close/keep Faulty nomination, belongs into CFD. CharonX/talk 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this is a category, but I was trying to keep it together with the similarly listed cocktail-expand above. ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE This was moved from WP:MFD as an improper listing. — xaosflux  Talk  05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is a project work list.  As such it should be maintained as a list on the project page.  There is no need for a category. Vegaswikian 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vegas, please bear in mind that a strong statement like that is rather harsh thing for someone who acted in good faith and is only trying to help improve Wikipedia. Bear in mind that it is difficult for the user who is bearing the brunt of this action to tell if your strong-ness is because you feel strongly about a specific course of action or if you are pissed off at the whole thing happening and you want it dealt with yesterday. Fortunately, I'm a pretty strong person, and I'm going to assume good faith here. It might also be helpful in future situations like this to at least point the person to a way to do what you suggest. Like I said, the WikiProject I'm involved with was never really setup properly in the first place, and a lot of things you assume I should know are things I am only now learning about. I'm sure you read lots of these things, but it it's my first one and was quite a shock to the system. Fortunately most people have been pretty helpful (including Grutness pointing me to those project headers), and that has helped. Be gentle with the newbies only trying to help. Thanks! --Willscrlt 10:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my impression that the phrase Strong Delete is not a personal reproach in the world of Categories for discussion forums. It is just an indication to the person closing the discussion. Vegaswikian even wrote the proper course of action.--- Safemariner 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. My point was to bear in mind the human factors involved: namely a well meaning user new to all this, and how a statement like that could be viewed. I'm sure that Wikipedia loses several good potential editors each week simply because to those who have been involved in discussions like this, it's a very cut and dry issue. But there is usually a person involved, likely very personally and emotionally, and the clinical discussion can come across as very cold and even mean to those not familiar with protocol. My apologies to Vegaswikian. Safemariner is right, Vegas did nothing wrong. I was probably still a little too emotional when I wrote that. :-) --Willscrlt 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. And welcome.  Vegaswikian 06:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.