Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 5

NekoDaemon upgraded
The new security feature for categoryredirect has been installed. The assumption is the last edit made on the category page containing the template was made by a sysop, who intended the use of the categoryredirect template after a CFD discussion. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since at least most of the entries in this list are legitimate redirects, either NekoDaemon will need some further change or an admin will have to touch each of these categories (and, BTW, I assume a null edit would not be sufficient). Perhaps another way to do this would be to act only on categories included in a list maintained on a protected page, and maybe once a day when NekoDaemon runs it could add an entry to the talk page listing categoryredirects not acted on.  This would let any user suggest a categoryredirect, and provide an easily updated mechanism allowing these to be acted on. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has to show up in the edit history. I'm slightly offended that Darwinek deleted my comment regarding a complaint made at my user page for using this feature.  As for your list suggestion, that can be easily arranged to be placed somewhere. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * List moved to User:NekoDaemon/categoryredirect log --AllyUnion (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested about categorization proposal
I've posted a proposal about categories and subcategories here. Please take a look. I'd appreciate feedback. The proposal concerns the relationship of categories and their topic articles, situations when articles may be in both a category and its subcategories, and some other general guidelines for categorization. These topics have been under discussion for many months (or should I say years!) This isn't quite to the vote stage, but it is getting close. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone is ignoring the rules
There has been an alarming rise in premature and improper deletions, depriving me of my right to vote. Can this stop please? The debates are supposed to last seven days. The balance of voting may change over time. Honbicot 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the Polish and Dutch Popes categories, I've restored them until their time here is completed and a proper consensus can be made. K1Bond007 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tag all fifty-something subcats?
Does someone have a bot that can tag all the subcategories of Category:U.S. Highway System for renaming? We have a bot to carry out the renaming, so why not the tagging? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't really have a bot for renaming. AWB and categoryredirect is essentially it. Currently, anyway. Theres seems to be only 5 subcats there. Am I missing something? K1Bond007 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:U.S. Highways by state has 50. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Move/Merge and delete - Jan 6th done
I'm confused by that comment on a change. There are still 2 open CfMs from that date that have not been closed with a conclusion by an admin. Vegaswikian 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe its a typo, as the cat he finished was a listing from Jan 5. --Syrthiss 22:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Vegaswikian 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When to remove the transcludes and/or begin closing discussions?
Is it safe to say that when the (prev day)..... (next day) header appears on the transcluded day that the 7 days have concluded? I'm semi new to this, and I've been waiting for the unambigious 8th day (ie closed 11th of jan today as it is now the 19th). Also, when should we remove the transclusion? I had moved a couple 7+ day logs off the page and worked on closing them earlier in the week...but a pair of discussions that I didn't get to on the pages I moved off didn't get seen / closed for a couple days (per Vegaswikian above). I noticed today that Kbdank71 was closing them on the page and waiting for them to be finished before removing the transclusion. --Syrthiss 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Closing on the active page keeps it all open. I only noticed the one above since I was waiting to see what the closing admin was going to decide, so I was waiting for the decision.  Normally I don't follow items I voted on in that level of detail.  Vegaswikian 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Guest stars on TV show "X"
A while back I recall there being a vote for deletion of the category of people who had appeared as themselves on The Simpsons. People like George Harrison and bands like Aerosmith were in the cat. The cat was deleted. I now see a similar category of Category:Friends guest stars. I'd like to know if anyone can tell me why the Simpsons cat was deleted to see if it fits this cat as well. Thanks. Dismas|(talk) 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't find the previous CFD, but I would agree that the category is probably too much detail for the various actors' pages. If any of these actors were frequently recurring guest stars, perhaps they would belong in Category:Friends or another subcategory (although I note that the main cast members aren't even in that category). — sjorford (talk)  20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

CfDs structured more like AfDs
Why isn't this page structured more like the AfD page, where you can watch specific CfDs and each CfD has its own page? It's a real headache trying to navigate through these, and it would be extremely helpful if the CfD template had a link to its particular discussion, like the AfD template does. &mdash; simpatico hi 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because CfD only gets a fraction of the nominations that AfD does. Having a page for each nomination here isn't needed.  You can watch the each daily page if you want.  --Kbdank71 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

undeletion
A category is deleted, and then undeleted. The subsequent second cfd is called "no consensus". Should the category be deleted (again) or remain? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a hypothetical question? --Kbdank71 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remain. I assume you mean that it was created again by someone after it was deleted through valid process?  I suppose someone could make a case for it being a speedy delete candidate if the person who recreated the category is the same one who created it originally (or had a significant stake in the discussion)...but really, if it got no consensus this round it should stay (if the above involvement doesn't exist).  If you think it should be tossed, maybe relist it for deletion a bit down the line and see if it ends up with a consensus. --Syrthiss 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would remain. There are two ways this could occur: either by recreation and re-Cfd, in which case the no consensus does not mandate deletion, or by a deletion review overturning the original deletion, in which case there'd be no consensus to re-delete. -Splash talk 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No consensus vote


 * subsequent deletion &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * you missed this discussion, where it was again voted to delete (a relisting of the no consensus). I was unable to find where the DRV archives are to see why it was overturned in the first place...but I assume it was valid process (ie DRV found a supermajority who wanted it relisted). --Syrthiss 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This process is nutty. 9 people voted to keep it, but kdbank relists it, nobody sees it, and two people vote to delete it, one because "we just voted on this". So it gets deleted. Idiotic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After the DRV, the category was sitting empty for over two full weeks. Not one of the 9 people who voted to keep, including you, who stated "easy to maintain",, not one of the people who kept it around on DRV, not one of you added one article.  I even said I'd change my vote to delete if someone populated it.  Nothing, nada, zip.  Idiotic is keeping an empty category around.  --Kbdank71 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well congratulations then. Third time's the charm, I guess. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no opinion as to whether or not it should stay or go based upon merit. The only reason I renominated it was because it was empty.  If someone wants to recreate it and populate it, I won't say a word about it.  --Kbdank71 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. But somebody obviously wants it gone. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Confused!
HELP!! I think I may have been breaking the rules lately. I'm confused on the rules for Speedy Renaming. On the top of the rules it states "Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections.". OK, deletion of a category normally requires 48 hour notice to allow for objections. Got it. But then I read further down under criteria for speedy rename. I first read these two to mean "normally wait 48 hours, unless it falls under any of these five bullet points for criteria." Well I haven't been warned yet, but thought I should ask before I continue - I've been doing enmass moving of articles from categories listed under requests for speedy renaming, mainly (and exclusivly) moving US entries to United States. '''Does this moving need to wait 48 hours after the timestamp of ~ on the listing request? If this is the case and I am in the wrong I apologize for any hassle I've caused and offer to take it upon my self to remove my already completed categories back to allow for proper debate.''' Please let me know what I should do, or perhaps if I'm doing it right currently and I'm just *really* confused. Thanks. &mdash;akghetto talk 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. Yeah, you're supposed to wait 48 hours, even for the bulleted speedy renames (which would include the US to United States ones).  But those have been sailing through, so no harm done, IMO.  Wait on future ones, though.  BTW, thanks for the help!  --Kbdank71 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Took a wrong turn somewhere I think
I nominated category:Vice Presidents who have shot people for deletion and followed all the steps I believe including clicking on the big giant "this link" to add it to todays section but it isn't showing up and I can't figure out why. Did I take a wrong turn somewhere?--Kalsermar 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're fine. The CFD page hasn't been updated yet by the bot that does it. Your nom is on February 14's subpage (which isn't currently listed). It'll show up soon when the bot does it's job. K1Bond007 04:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for the reply.--Kalsermar 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

People known in connection with sports and hobbies
What happened to my proposed rename of this category from the 25th? I know I added text to the Categories for deletion page but now I don't see it? --JeffW 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You aren't thinking of this one from the 23rd? ? --Syrthiss 15:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I withdrew the merge but still wanted to rename that category. The tag is still on the category page but there isn't anything in Categories for deletion now.  --JeffW 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't save it. I'll go and redo the entry; I wanted to tweak the new category name anyway. --JeffW 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Process for speedily deleting categories?
Category:Football World Cup Squads and Category:European Football Championship Squads had been created contrary to the capitalisation convention of categories. This has since been fixed and all the relevant pages have been re-categorised under Category:Football World Cup squads and Category:European Football Championship squads. Is there any process available to speedily delete the two former categories? --Pkchan 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Category:Football World Cup sqauds is another erroneously created category. --Pkchan 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You can apply the WP:CSD for categories on them, most likely C2 (speedy renames). I'd probably use db witha pipe explaining the reason ie {db|CSD C2 - category mistakenly created with incorrect capitalization, already have moved articles over to proper categories}. I'll go whack those cats now, though. --Syrthiss 14:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Pkchan 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

category redirects with R templates
Just found marvel comics redirect, no leading colon, with R from other capitalisation. It's been there a long time (2005-02-13).

So, I went looking for others with this R template. Found only:
 * science fiction novels, hard redirect with leading colon (2005-08-05).
 * wikipedia help, soft redirect, recently added.

Apparently, the hard redirect bug was fixed. Is it time to change the instructions? Should Categories be redirected the same as articles now?
 * --William Allen Simpson 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because articles categorized using the redirect still do not appear with the others. Until that is fixed, avoid category redirects. I speedied the ones above after moving the articles to the correct category. — Mar. 8, '06 [17:44] 

CfD reform -- Criteria for deletion based on precedent
I would like to propose that we create a page of specific guidelines for which types of categories should and should not be deleted. Currently people propose categories for deletion for all sorts of reasons. Each of us has our own idea about what categories belong and what categories do not belong. I propose that we create this list of criteria, based on precedent, to be used when a category is nominated for deletion or renaming. For example, one might be "Precedent R-4 -- religious category unconnected to subject matter" or "Precedent OV-1 -- Overcategorization too specific to be useful". I'd be happy to start such a list, mining criteria from previous discussions.

The way I envision this working, it would be RECOMMENDED that people would be REQUIRED to  do one of three things when nominating a category for deletion or renaming:
 * 1) List the precedent that they think applies to the category
 * 2) Argue for a new precedent
 * 3) Argue to modify or override an existing precedent

By specifying one of these three options, the debate would be focussed and the discussion would be different for each case. In the first case, the debate would be about whether the precedent applies to the category. The second and third case would be about the merits of the new or old precedent and its implications and effects on other categories.

A by-product of this system would be that people joining the debate would have to learn about the previous precedent to be taken seriously. This might make it much easier for admins to close the debate.

I would very much appreciate hearing comments and concerns about this. As Wikipedia grows, we need some type of system to keep this process under control. Otherwise we risk burning out from repeating the same debates over and over. -- Samuel Wantman 10:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats an interesting idea, so I wouldn't mind seeing a list if you want to do the datamining. Something else that we might want to think about: rename debates sometimes get sidetracked into deletion.  I know thats just how it has been done for a while here, but I'd like to have a handle on exactly how often it happens and whether other people feel that its ok or if we should codify a process to handle it (ie if it is a rename and someone proposes delete, then the debate has to finish as a delete first before the renaming is considered). --Syrthiss 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Instruction creep. It is, I'm afraid. I'd be very strongly opposed to any of these changes. The freedom to suggest at will is useful and can often be insightful. Having a list of precedents can be useful as a reference, but emphatically not as a requirement. There's some initial datamining that Radiant! and I did a while back in the archives of my talk page. If you're interested, I'll find it for you. The notion that people should be required to adhere rigidly to a set of rules with the presumption that they are wrong or "not to be taken seriously" is fairly dangerous. It stifles creativity and stays the free hand to move in an unexpected direction when precedent, whilst useful, should not be imbued with such authority. I don't see any reason to make the change in how deletes/vs/renames are handled. What existing problem motivates such a change? -Splash talk 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Speedy deletion criteria could be expanded so that more deletes could be disposed of without listing on the CfD page and not having to wait 48 hours to 7 days. Following previous precedent should be given more weight in voting.  The remane of US aircraft failed because there were enough voters who did not like the current standard being used here or in their project. Vegaswikian 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You propose creating a speedy that, explicitly, lack consensus?! Previous precedent is useful in knowing where to start, not in deciding where to stop. -Splash talk 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are along the lines of Splash, including the instruction creep problem. A list may be useful as a preference, not as a requirement.  There are often differences in the facts so that a precedent isn't exactly on target, and there can well be disagreeement as to whether or not the precedent applies, making an institutionalized weighting factor difficult (especially if that "weight" equates with deciding the issue, as Vegaswikian proposes).  In fact, there are likely to be some cases for which there are conflicting precedents, depending on how the issue is characterized. Gene Nygaard 20:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Speedy criteria have been hard to get a concensus on.  So the criteria that exist are limited.  Any changes would still require consensus.  Vegaswikian 21:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (categories) is official policy, and leads to a speedy rename in 48 hours. The intention when that page was created (I was there) was that people would be able to propose, case-by-case new naming conventions on the talk pages listed there (with a ping to CfD debates), and, if that proposal acquired a consensus, it could be added to the list. It could be amended in the same way. In fact, just after the establishment of that page, this was used on several slightly tricky parts of the list that now appears there. That is actually a rather stronger process than the one Vegaswikian proposes. It hasn't been tested a great deal recently since most of the entries appearing on it have been completed a while ago. That said, even that does require a 48hr listing, just to give people time to say "hey, but no, because..." and trigger a full CfD. I think it's a fairly lightweight operation. -Splash talk 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion lists 'C1: Empty — C2: Renamed — C3: Templated' as three reasons for deleting categories without any waiting period as I understand it. It is normal to see emptied categories from the discussions here listed there for the actual deletion to take place.  So cateories meeting those criteria, or any of the general reasons, like G7 authors request, can be deleted without delay by listing there rather then here. Vegaswikian 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see how the word REQUIRED would raise red flags. How about saying that it is RECOMMENDED that people do one of the three things listed above when nominating a category for deletion or renaming. The initial nominator, unaware of the process, might not mention what the precedent is, but those of us that hang out on this page should try to find one, and we should use precedent to frame the debate as I've outlined above. So in a sense, we would not be adding any rules, just agreeing about how we should frame the debate. The list of precedents would have a resource that everyone could examine to keep from recreating the wheel (in many different shapes), and it would be clear if the discussion is about applying precedent or changing it. -- Samuel Wantman
 * Recommended is better, but I still worry about the kind of examples you envision. I don't see how we could possibly have what you describe as OV-1, because the OV determination is clearly a matter for a CfD. (The first example I find somewhat confusing since it turns on "disconnection".) Specific, case-by-case (meaning group-of-cases by...) proposals can already be established and I think a more atomic level is likely to produce better results. These are most obviously given examples in Naming conventions (categories) which gives some highly homogeneous category groups a humanly-intelligible navigation scheme. I don't think you'd want it too atomic: "Categories of roads in Bristol, England, to be named like..." wouldn't be a helpful precedent. Basically, a list of commonly used precedents could be handy for new nominators, new debaters and old hands as a quick reference but shouldn't disallow as much wriggle wroom as a given special case might need. -Splash talk 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, all the precedents will have grey areas, and their application to new categories will require discussion. There must be wiggle room. But with a list of precedents at least we'll have a better sense about what is being discussed. When I was new to Wikipedia, and first encountered CfD, it seemed that there was a group of old-timers that had clear criteria for what is valid and what isn't. The problem I found was that I had no idea what those criteria were, and with hundreds of precedents it is not easy to understand the reasons for people's quick and terse decisions. Now that I have joined the regulars here, I have my own set of criteria and knowledge of precedent. It would be convenient for me, and helpful to the newcomer if I could just refer to a precedent that explains the history of similar decisions. Then we can discuss whether the precedent should apply, or if a new precedent should be set. This seems like win-win for all involved, especially when precedents need changing. It is hard to argue for a change when you don't even know what precedents people are using to base their decisions. -- Samuel Wantman 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we supposed to remove the cfd template?
Is the cfd template automatically removed when an admin has closed out the discussion or is the proposer supposed to do that. See Category:People known in connection with sports and hobbies.


 * The closer should remove the notice. I'll poke AKGhetto about it, and go clean up the cat. Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NekoDaemon down
Not sure what's up, but it's not NekoDaemon. (For anyone who does not know, NekoDaemon is the CFD bot that automates a number of things around here.

Neko has not run since the 18th, apparently. Mostly wanted to let people know since, without Neko, we won't get out nice clean new CFD page every day automatically. I've added one for today, but we'll need to handle each day manually until we can get Neko working again. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that you tried to email AllyUnion but got a bounce. I have an address for him that I sent a heads up to, and haven't got a bounce yet (~1 hr ago) so hopefully he'll see that and lemme know whats up.  If I hear anything I'll respond here. --Syrthiss 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * His reply sounded like he's very busy IRL so we may be without nekodaemon's services for a bit. He said if he has time to clean the it up he would supply the pywiki code to the archive, which means someone else could possibly run it. --Syrthiss 13:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I dropped a line on User talk:Cryptic.
 * --William Allen Simpson 06:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup section
Would it be OK to make a /Cleanup to hold the cleanup section? That would make it easier/faster to edit and track/watch separately, like the Holding Cell section of TfD.
 * --William Allen Simpson 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. It would make tracking changes easier for both the main page and for the cleanup section. - EurekaLott 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I saw that you added today's Log file, so I added Categories for deletion/Working immediately afterwards. Turns out Categories for deletion/cleanup was already a talk archive.
 * --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

CFD nom piping and js functions?
Is there some javascript function people are using to nominate things for cfd? I ask because where I used to see headers that were
 * ==== Category:Foo ====

quite often now I see
 * ==== Category:Foo ====

...and personally it makes no sense to me why it is piping the name. It is redundant (Category:Living people looks the same as Category:Living people, look at my coding) and it makes some of the edit summaries horribly long for the more involved category names and renames. --Syrthiss 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like Freakofnurture made the change to Template:Cfd2 earlier this month (diff). - EurekaLott 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a well-meant but unnecessary change. I have reverted it. -Splash talk 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "and there was much rejoycing!" --Syrthiss 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the piping from Template:Cfr2, as well. Did we miss any? - EurekaLott 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not newbie friendly
A newbie wanted to know how to rename a category, and I figured I would just point him to the relevant section here, but after looking at this page, I can't find any newbie friendly discussions of category renaming. You guys might want to think about putting the descriptions of what CFD does and how it works in language that is more friendly to inexperienced Wikipedians. For example haivng a little more than 2 paragraphs in front of the big How To box. Just a thought. Dragons flight 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Part I could be moved up on the page, and the block could be renumbered (like WP:TFD and WP:AFD) for consistency.


 * Also, having all the days listed may have made sense when there were only a few per day, but now it's just a huge waste of time. I'd prefer a nice little block like old debates.  Especially as that would allow my browser to "remember" which days I'd seen (link automatically dimmed in the history).


 * Really, WP:AFD is much more user friendly, and it's not that friendly.
 * --William Allen Simpson 10:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming done through cut and paste moves?
Are category renames done through cut and paste moves? This violates GFDL by not preserving history of the blurb shown in the category page apart from articles, images and subcategories. (At least I noticed that Category:Redirects from other capitalisations was created with a copy paste as the page doesn't retain any history of its past avatar as Category:Redirects for alternative capitalisation.) -- Paddu 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly, yes. Its a limitation of the mediawiki software that categories cannot be themselves moved.  When a category is renamed its previous history is lost because we create a new category with the new name, move all the articles over to it, and then delete the old one.  The way that GFDL is *somewhat* preserved is that basically a category is an article of dynamic links to other articles...so the history of Category:Redirects for alternative capitalisation wouldn't show what articles were in it at any given time.  It would only show a change in something like the inclusion criteria for the category or changes in the overcategories for that category.  The articles themselves have as part of their history what categories they have been included in, though. --Syrthiss 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's rarely a concern, as the contents of a category are usually too sparse to merit copyright protection (e.g., a stock line saying that the category contains articles relating to whatever the title of the category is, and some meta categories). GFDL is to preserve recognition primarily out of respect for the intellectual property interests of contributors. BD2412  T 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to be on wikivacation! Shoo! :) --Syrthiss 21:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And, in cases where there's significant history in the category talk page, the talk page can be moved (preserving its history). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that for category pages with larger texts, the history should be copy-pasted into the talk page, as is done for Transwiki. Probably this should be added as a note to the instructions to admins renaming a category? BTW where do those instructions reside? -- Paddu 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to look for them. :) --Syrthiss 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * here is the process itself and that is linked from the Closure section on Category deletion policy, linked from the top link in "How to use this page" on WP:CFD. A little more arcane than I remember TfD and AfD being, I'm afraid. --Syrthiss 12:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)