User talk:Xdamr/Archive 9

Deletion review for Category:Roman Catholic jurists

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Roman Catholic jurists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Melodifestivalen songs of 2005

Thanks. I guess it's time to nominate the rest. I hope to get to that later today. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Closure of discussion

I see you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_3#Category:Druze_surnames saying "Per discussion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country". How do you deal with the argument that this is not a "by coutry" but a "by ethnicity" category? This argument has been mentioned by more than one person in the discussion, and I am frankly surprised by your decision to delete. But most of all, I am worried by the precident your rationale is creating. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and for the change in the closure summary, which has eased my worries substantialy. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Film genres by music genre

Hi. You closed the CfD and removed the tag on this category on July 16, but I see it has still not been renamed. Is a bot going to get to it in due time, you think? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in the job queue so something should be happening soonish. There does seem to be a little bit of a backlog building up but I'm sure we'll have a bot on it in reasonably short order.

Xdamr^talk 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nation of Islam members

This looks like consensus to rename. Can you take another look at it? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've taken another look at the debate but I'm still not sure that I see a real consensus. After the 'NoI people' suggestion was dropped, the nominator's rationale for then prefering 'NoI members' struck me as being vaguely incoherent. This left Jafeluv in favour of the status quo and you in favour of 'NoI members'. I really wasn't able to determine the logic underpinning the argument in favour of change, especially as, per Jafeluv, the 'Members of ...' form is quite common. The debate amounted to a more or less 50/50 split of opinion (discounting the nominator's vague contribution) so perhaps 'no consensus' would have been a more precise call than 'keep', but I'm afraid I couldn't see the case for the rename.

Xdamr^talk 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Malayalam-language films

Why were all the Malayalam-language films removed from all the Malayalam-language films by year categories? Do you know? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

After the recent cfd, to which you contributed, the consensus was to merge the by-year categories to by-decade categories.

Hope that helps, --Xdamr^talk 11:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You must have been half-done with the process when I looked at it before or something.

I think if you read the CfD, it doesn't call anywhere for the creation of Category:Malayalam-language films by decade, and since that would always be a small category, I don't think it adds anything to the category tree. What do think of speedy-removing Category:Malayalam-language films by decade as a category that only you have edited? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And merge the decade categories straight into Category:Malayalam-language films? I suppose you have a point there - Category:Malayalam-language films by decade does seem a bit of an unecessary layer now I think about it. I'll make the change.

Xdamr^talk 01:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia CFDs

Hi, thanks for taking care of the two recent Macedonia-related CFDs. Since you called consensus in favour of WP:NCMAC but, in some sense, against WP:NCCAT, perhaps it would be useful to have your input at the discussion at WT:NCCAT, about how to ultimately align the two guidelines. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try and frame some suitable thoughts and see what I can add to the discussion. --Xdamr^talk 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish - from Northern Ireland

Hi. I want to begin by thanking you for changing the 'Northern Irish' categories to a 'from Northern Ireland' it is something that has annoyed me about the UK categories for quite a while, however there are several more 'Northern Irish' categories on Wikipedia and I was wondering if as a result of the discussion can I change, can you change or does there have to be another discussion to change the rest? Here are a few examples: Category:Northern Irish Protestants, Category:Northern Irish Anglicans, Category:Northern Irish Baptists, Category:Northern Irish Evangelicals, Category:Northern Irish Methodists, Category:Northern Irish Elim Pentecostals, Category:Northern Irish Presbyterians, Category:Northern Irish paramilitaries amongst others. Thanks.--Chromenano (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I'd be content to speedy rename any more 'NI by occupation' categorisations given that the debate has just closed and the precedent has been agreed with no opposition. I'm not sure I feel the same way about these religion categories, not without knowing how changing them would contradict any existing 'Religious adherents by country' classifications. In this case I'd be inclined to reccomend that you raise a fresh nomination to gauge opinion.

Xdamr^talk 20:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll get onto it.--Chromenano (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:First number-one singles for artist

If you closed this as delete, why hasn't it been deleted yet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With categories on cfd it isn't quite as simple as judging consensus as 'delete' and then going straight ahead and deleting them. In order to avoid creating red links on categorized pages it is first necessary to edit each individual article and remove the offending category. Only then, with the category emptied, can deletion take place. This time-consuming task is usually done by bot, but for some reason a little bit of a backlog has build up over the past few days. Rest assured though, the category will be deleted.

Xdamr^talk 20:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Films by topic

Based on your closing comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15#Category:Films_feautring_orphans, I have nominated Category:Films by topic for deletion. Please do weigh in, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately real-world issues meant that I've not been around for the past few weeks so it seems that I've missed out. --Xdamr^talk 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BMX riders

While you were closing this as Keep. I was closing as a rename with a long explanation. Any objection to my changing the close? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have uber-strong feelings on this one - my feeling was that the discussion as a whole was pretty weak. I'm not wedded to 'Keep' but I'd be interested in your rationale for renaming? --Xdamr^talk 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BMX seems to be the wrong term for the categories since it's use is restricted and does not apply to all motorcross. So motorcross is the broader term of which BMX could be a sub category. So by renaming, we can later add BMX as a subcategory if needed. Also the rename does not destroy anything so it is still a safe option since everything will still be grouped as is. Given that BMX is a redirect is generally an indication that it should not be used for the category, the article title should be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially the point re the parent article. Feel free to amend my closure in these terms. --Xdamr^talk 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cfd query

Preface: As another user who closes CfDs, I know how much of a pain doing so can be when there are inquiries and second-guessing afterwards. I trust you know that I understand the situation you're placed in as a close and my intent is not to harass or give you a hard time ... Content: I'm not sure if this close was such a good idea. There is quite a—what shall we call it?—movement currently underway to replace "Northern Irish" as a "nationality" in category names and replace it with some variety of "... from Northern Ireland". From a personal standpoint, I don't understand the problem with using "Northern Irish" and I wouldn't usually have any qualms about your close or Alansohn's reasoning, except for the fact this decision will be out-of-line with some fairly consistent and repeated consensus decisions over the past few months to make this type of change. I'm not asking you change the decision—just to, as the DRV instructions put it—"reconsider". Or at least give you a chance for input. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for feeling my pain! Seriously though, always happy to answer queries after the event (well, most some of the time at least...).

So far as these NI categories go (and I closed one or two of these earlier cfds myself) I am aware of the 'movement'. The trouble is in the haste to get rid of 'Northern Irish' namings, we seem to have broken consistency across a number of categories. Taking one of the more recent mass-renames - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_27#Irish_to_Northern_Ireland - we can see that that cfd has broken consistency in a number of parent "XXX by country" categories. A quick and random sampling turns up Category:Male models, Category:Priests by nationality, Category:Television actors by nationality, Category:Poems by nationality, and Category:Poets by nationality - all of which now have the single, anomalous NI category in what is otherwise a clearly established "XXX people" setup.

Wrt to Category:Northern Irish people convicted of murder I also felt guided by the recent connected discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_29#Criminal_categories_implying_POV in which the form "XXX people convicted of <insert crime here>" seemed to be broadly supported as part of a wider scheme of dual 'by-jurisdiction' and 'by-nationality' categorisation.

All in all it's something of a mess, but personally I think that it is better to try and avoid disturbing the consistency of established category trees unless there is real and pressing Cause (although if discussion clearly addressed the question of loss of consistency and decided that it wasn't a significant consequence then that might be different). Some of these trees call for the use of 'Northern Ireland', some for 'Northern Irish', some for 'France', some for 'French', etc, etc, ad infinitum. Unless this is part of a wider effort to standardise national by-occupation category names I don't see the benefit of piecemeal and selective elimination of the adjective.

Xdamr^talk 10:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this a no-consensus vote?

I reviewed the action taken at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_27#Category:Fads and it appears that there was no consensus for a deletion. Please review this and see if it was deleted in error.--The lorax (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with The lorax. There was clearly no consensus for deletion in that discussion. At least a few of those recommending keep put forward reasonable arguments that were not fully refuted. Powers ^T 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the two of you for your notes. Per my closing remarks, the problem lies with the inherent vagueness involved in defining something as a 'fad'. The absence of definition makes it nothing other than an exercise in categorising by opinion. This kind of subjectivity is not a sustainable basis for categorisation and is contrary to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:CAT, the core guidelines in this area. None of the 'keep' arguments were sufficient to dispel or alleviate this fundamental concern.

Xdamr^talk 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They were certainly sufficient for the majority of contributors to the discussion. Most of them rejected the argument that the categorization was irretrievably subjective and offered explanations and reasoning. Certainly, at least, there was very wide disagreement on whether or not those arguments were sufficient, so the discussion did not reach a consensus. Powers ^T 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I was about to close to the discussion just prior to User:Xdamr doing so. I was also going to close it as "delete" for essentially the same reasons: the strength of the arguments. Consensus-finding is not a "vote count". The relevant policy states quite clearly: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The core principles cited by User:Xdamr were established by wide community consensus; one discussion "cannot" override that, according to the policy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The problem is that there were strong arguments to be made that those core principles were not being violated by this content. There is no core principle that says "We cannot categorize phenomena as 'fads'" -- rather, the core principles must be interpreted and applied to specific situations. The disagreement is over how to apply those principles in this case, and I really feel there was no consensus that those core principles were being violated. Powers ^T 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I found these arguments to be specious, failing to convincingly address the principle at issue; the subjective inclusion criterion. Per WP:CAT, "do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features". The arguments in favour of retention were insufficiently compelling to convince me that the basis for these categories was remotely objective - indeed as much was conceded by some of the categories' supporters, who accepted that the concept was a substantially a creature of mass marketing etc.

Xdamr^talk 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And at some point someone has to make such an assessment that the closer did—otherwise any small group of coordinated editors could make arguments in any particular case that a particular core principle does not apply in the particular situation and thereby nullify the principle altogether. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whereas I found them, if not compelling, at least worthy enough of strong enough consideration as to not merit complete disregard. Powers ^T 02:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Xdamr, I agree with Powers, the deletion was arbitrary and the reasons to keep were not refuted well at all. As such, I've sent this to deletion review of Category:Fads.--The lorax (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, no problem. --Xdamr^talk 10:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions re close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 2#Category:Proponents of 9.2F11 conspiracy theories

I'm a bit confused by your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 2#Category:Proponents of 9.2F11 conspiracy theories, in which consensus for retention was turned into a rename. The issues regarding WP:OC#OPINION were considered and rejected by overwhelming consensus. I'm not sure what exactly a conspiracy theorist does for a living, but there are certainly those in the category who have not theorized any conspiracies regarding September 11, but whose role as a proponent of conspiracies theorized by others is a defining characteristic that falls into the "activist" label described by WP:OC#OPINION. Alansohn (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The rename restricts the category to those who are actively concerned with the creation and development of these theories, for whom this fact would usually be defining and therefore the a categorisable attribute. Any 'activists' of these theories would (in my view) be reasonably categorisable within a subcat of Category:Activists by issue.

Xdamr^talk 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:9/11 Truth movement activists, based on participation in the 9/11 Truth movement?

Hi Xdamr,

The renaming of Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists has reignited a dispute in the 9/11 subject area that seemed to be settled for some time. I am not sure whether the debate will be any more constructive than previous ones.

Creating a category with a name that most people reject as a self-description tend to lead to a situation where BLP of people that basically no-one is defending are left in the category, regardless of whether the inclusion is justified or not. Once Holocaust deniers, long-standing conspiracy theorists, some of which did not show particular interest in 9/11, and other such people are populating the category, the implicit BLP issues, as perceived by editors, are growing even more serious. "9/11 Conspiracy theorists" leaves open the question whether a mere opinion is sufficient for inclusion, while "Proponents of..." implies active advocacy.

As an alternative, one could create a category such as Category:9/11 Truth movement activists, based on participation in the 9/11 Truth movement. This would more clearly define who should be in the category and who should not be. For example, Charlie Sheen is clearly an active proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but he is not taking part in the 9/11 Truth movement (at least such activism is not evidenced by reliable sources). Do you think such a category, which could also be a sub-category of Category:Activists might be helpful?

  Cs32en  08:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Firstly re. Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists, irrespective of the merits of the rename, I think the debate established that there are two classes of people who ought to be categorised: those who develop the theories, and those actively and substantially advocate them. Wrt the first, I don't think that there can be any substantial BLP issues around those who, as the category suggests, theorise conspiracy. The connected article is at 9/11 conspiracy theories (albeit not without some controversy), so the category links in nicely.

Onto the activists, which I agree deserve a home - perhaps a subcat of Category:Activists by issue would be appropriate? I think we would be best avoiding the POV implications with the use of 'truth' in Category:9/11 Truth movement activists. How about the obvious(ish) choice - Category:9/11 conspiracy activists? This could encompass Truth Movement participants, as well as those who may not be allied to to it such as your example of Charlie Sheen. Of course, a constant issue will be vigilance against mere opinion-holders - advocacy will have to be sourced in the relevant bio articles, but then that goes for all categorisation. FWIW, this also avoids calling them 'conspiracy theorists' labelling them as 'conspiracy activists' instead. As a broad concept how does it strike you?

Xdamr^talk 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xdamr,

sorry, I've been away from WP for some days. Thank you for your answer! I agree with some of the points that you make. It would be logical and probably also useful to have two lists. However, it might be twice the work to maintain them. The issue with the "conspiracy theorists/activists" is the supposition that these would be a special kind of people that start from a radically different view of the world as other people, and then draw conclusions from that. This is a misrepresentation. Therefore, I will not set up such a category. Also "conspiracy activists" may read like the people would be active in conspiracies. (Sometimes the 9/11 Truth movement is depicted as some kind of conspiracy world, or a conspiracy against the U.S.) The situation is now stable (at least for the moment). So I will not make major changes at present.   Cs32en  15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rogaining competitors

I am a little confused as to why this name was chosen when no sources use it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, quelled by all these recent DRVs I've been incurring (ha!), I went with weight of numbers. What I thought I had done was also to leave some closing remarks to the effect that I would suggest renomination for merger/deletion as I too doubted the category's potential for growth etc. I must have managed to confuse myself and close the window before saving as I see no sign of any such remarks now I look at the debate. Whether 'Rogainers' or 'Rogaining competitors' is the name used, it all smacks of two bald men fighting over a comb - I don't think that the category is merited given current coverage.

Xdamr^talk 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Alumni of LAMDA

It is a pity you closed the discussion so promptly as I did not get the chance to reply to the last comment made. The last comment was "I think those fall under "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form"". This was precisely my argument that LAMDA was "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form". Cjc13 (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel rather bad at denying you your riposte, sorry about that! I would have left the discussion open for a few hours more if I had noticed that there was some ongoing chat. --Xdamr^talk 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_6#Category:Governors-General_of_Malta

How did you come up with "The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Governors-General of Malta to Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta." ????

Zero people voted for the "Governors and Governors-General of Malta" option while two of us asked for "Governors of Malta" !

Please relpy on my page. Thank you. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see I have an issues with Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta, because (in short) it doesn't fit the category tree. I didn't state this because no one had even voted for this option (as of then). Please either change the "result of the discussion" to Category:Governors-General of Malta or just revert and "results of the discussion" -- and then vote instead. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It seemed to be the only option which obviated the concerns expressed by all participants wrt categorising Governors as Governors-General or vice versa. Having said that, and digging around a bit more in the Governors/Governors-General tree, it does seem a bit of an inelegant solution. Speaking personally, I would have little problem with the Governors-General having their own categories and being placed directly in Category:Governors-General, thereby enabling a rename for the Malta category to include only Governors. Xdamr^talk 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If that is true... that you also are fine with a Category:Governors of Malta and Category:Governors-General of Malta... then why didn't you do this (that some of us asked for) instead of something no one wanted? Wikipedia is run by discussions and consesous... not run by benevolent dictators! ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(...I thought consensus was a benevolent dictator ... ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is a benevolent dictator, but not Xdamr is not. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So should I go to deletion review for Category:Governors-General of Malta then? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I rather lost track of this conversation, managing to overlook your note above. I've thought about it and I think that the best thing would be to relist the category for further debate. Or what about raising a cfd for the Malta category, as presently named, with the Nigeria category, and doing away with the 'Governors and Governors-General ...' construction?

Benevolent Regards, Xdamr^talk 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to relist it then. I am not sure how I would do that so that it doesn't look like bringing up a "closed issue."

I guess I could vote for the same change with Nigerian, if you feel like posting it, but I do not have strong feelings about the Nigeria category since it has at least one argument for it that Malta does not. (There were few Nigerian Governors and few Nigerian Governors-General.) ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the plan is for split categories of governors/governors-general for Malta and Nigeria. I'll hive off the governors-general from each category, then it will be a simple rename to 'Governors of XXX' for both of these 'Governors and Governors-General...' categories. I'll get onto it. --Xdamr^talk 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds very good.^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy decline

Per the description of the speedy tag itself, anyone can remove the speedy nom, yes? I did so, and would ask that you please leave it removed. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fads

Just a friendly note on Category:Fads. I declined the speedy because A3 only applies to articles. Perhaps you meant C1? If so, the correct tag would be {{db-catempty}}. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Xdamr. You have new messages at [[User talk:Debresser#Eponymous category cfds - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 17|Debresser's talk page]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Closure of Gundam Wars CfD

Hello Xamdr, just so you know, you didn't completely resolve this discussion when you closed it - part of the nomination was what to do with Category:Gundam Wars itself, but your closure doesn't mention it at all. Thanks in advance for your attention, regardless of how you handle this! ^_^ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have been half-asleep when I closed that debate! I've amended the cfd to add Category:Gundam Wars for merging, so that should be everything taken care of now.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response! =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Free game modification tools

You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 18#Category:Free game modification tools with a merge, which I can agree with. However, the original category still exists: Category:Free game modification tools. Is this a delayed reaction of Wikipedia, or was it forgotten, or did the category-delete script screw up? --DanielPharos (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still in the job queue for merger and deletion. Looking at it, the contents have been moved elsewhere but the deletion hasn't taken place yet. Just to speed things along I'll get on and delete it myself. Thanks, --Xdamr^talk 12:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so there is a delay in the deletion of categories. Good to know. Thanks! --DanielPharos (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies...

Apologies if I sounded grumpy about the nomination of {{cl}} at tfd - it was the sight of WP:SFD littered with "this template has been nominated..." stickers which annoyed me. I agree that finding some way of keeping cl off headers at CFD would be a good thing 9and it shouldn't happen if people are following the template instructions when they use {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} (although these are a pain when you're making a group nom, I must admit). I can't see any point in the {{cat}} template, though, so perhaps that one should go... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry about it - I rather choked on my Cheerios myself when I saw the ruin to which I had blithely reduced SFD! On the other hand, at least I found out that cl does have some purpose... I think after all the excitement I might leave cat while I dig around and try establish exactly what is the void it is trying to fill. I might even have a poke around the cfd templates and try and make things a little easier there (always one for hopeless causes). One thing is for sure, the next person using cat at CFD can stand by...

Xdamr^talk 02:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

T-minus 2 days and counting ... ? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Weep... --Xdamr^talk 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha, luckily for the nom it ended as a no consensus ;) -Xdamr^talk 13:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, another DRV

I see you were neither queried about your close nor notified of the DRV. Eponymous rapper categories. Apparently you're super-voting again. <rolleyes> Otto4711 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't these people realise I make 'super-votes' because I am 'SUPER-ADMIN'! Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Whoooosh....

Ok, back to reality! Thanks for the heads-up, mutter, mutter...

Xdamr^talk 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: US DSM

You were right and I was utterly wrong. I have reverted myself now after looking at each article. Guess I was in a rush and didn't really read it, or think about it! I will remember to look a bit closer next time. Oh well, everything fixed now. Thank you for letting me know. Best regards, Woody (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)