Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 13

Katie Beers – Article has already been recreated; nothing worth restoring in the history. The new article badly needs carefully sourced expansion, if anyone wants to give it a go. – Chick Bowen 02:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

)

I want to make it into Kidnapping of Katie Beers, and include the trial, the kidnapper, and other elements of the case Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing of any use in either sentence of the article. It was deleted due to (partially spurious)
biographical policy rules, and given that and the total lack of anything that would help you, there is no need to undelete this. Just go ahead and write a proper article, bearing in mind the content policies. Splash - tk 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Concur. The closest the deleted revisions come to usefulness is this link to a search of The New York Times' archives. —Cryptic 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cut and paste to my page, if it was a stub, its start. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd be willing the undelete the sentence Katie Beers was the subject of a heavily publicized kidnapping story in the early 1990s, and survived., but not the slightly longer version which has serious BLP problems. But remember that even the longer text is an unsourced stub of no real value in creating a substantial article on the case. Indeed I see that you already have more information and better sourcing in the article. Eluchil404 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the new stub is already better in sourcing. I don't see anything we can undelete while complying with
GRBerry 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jim Jagielski – Restored to userspace per request. – Splash - tk 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I would be interested in attempting to bring this article up to standards. Please restore it and its history to my User space. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV's been resolved, can an uninvolved admin please speedily close it? east.718 at 23:29, 11/13/2007

This is entirely ancillary, and there is no need to feel you can't close it off yourself. I'll do it, though. Splash - tk 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Taneraic – Deletion endorsed. Consensus seems to indicate that relisting this for a deletion sort would be process for the sake of process. This process would have little substantive result in drawing greater participation (and the process is not required by policy anyway). Although the participation was low, it was not unreasonable. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No real discussion, and was not listed at the relevant deletion sort so that interested editors could contribute. Please speedy relist for AfD so that a proper discussion can take place. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was tagged for deletion for over 8 days. In that time, no one spoke up in defense of the article nor did anyone make any edits to the page in an attempt to improve it. The request to validate the notability of the topic sat unchallenged since January 2007. While there was only thin participation in the deletion discussion, what discussion there was was unanimous. I find no process problems with the discussion. The nominator here has offered no new evidence to suggest that a relisting would result in any different answer. I am going to endorse the closure with the specific not that, according to our policy and precedent, it is not our responsibility to list deletions in the deletion sorting splits. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Does anyone even use those seriously? Similarly that slightly irritating template that I keep having to remove on every AfD I close? Bare few are the debates I've seen where there has been any evidence of interest arising from a deletion sort. Splash - tk 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I wasn't aware that anyone followed the deletion sort, but it's nice to know that efforts to include the proper deletion sort are not wasted. However, I don't think it is out of process to not list the proper deletion sort. -- Jreferee t/c 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some deletion sorts are used frequently. I watchlist some that are used frequently - or at least regularly when there is a relevant AFD - one of which I suspect is being misused by a group of editors - but I've never seen solid enough evidence to act on, and it is a problem of editor conduct rather than the delsort page itself. Others I've flagged specifically because I thought pseudo-expert attention was needed for a specific discussion and it was the best way to get it; it has generally worked for that purpose when I've tried it. I know of one or two people who use the categories driven by that irritating template, and have even once seen here an argument that those templates are an adequate substitute for listing on a daily log page - that argument was soundly rejected when it was brought up. 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Perhaps we ought to have a system where each dynamic link to an article turns a certain color while the article is pending at AfD. That way, you can load a user subpage with links to all the article you want to watch and if any links turn that color, you'll know it is listed at AfD. And once the AfD is closed, then the links go back to their normal color. Perhaps propose that at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -- Jreferee t/c 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Proposed. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey if you have any reason (i.e. evidence or counterarguments) to suspect relisting would produce a different result, fine, I'll relist, with or without a DRV. But there's no quorum at AFD, 8 days with no opposition is generally enough unless the closer is skeptical that the people involved have really thought things through. --W.marsh 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I think you only need two participants to have a consensus and this AfD had three, all of whom agreed. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Google books and Google scholar bring up some information. The private language was invented more than forty years ago, so there may be more information on it, most likely not easily available on the Internet. No prejudice against recreating an article using and citing these and other reliable source. -- Jreferee t/c 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unless someone comes up with a plausible reason this might be kept. I see no reason to overturn in the AFD, the nomination, or the deleted article. If the creator is notable and this is significant in his life or work it might someday be worth merging to
GRBerry 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't want to argue here the specific reasons why it should or shouldn't be deleted; that is a matter for AfD. My request for relist is solely on the grounds that the original AfD did not get substantive discussion - no counterpoints, no attempts to discover new facts, no participation from WP:CL members or editors of the article, nada - and I believe that a relist with mention on the WP:CL deletions page would get it. While it may not be your responsibility to list it multiply, and it went 8 days without someone noticing, not everybody notices everything in 8 days, especially when you don't tell 'em about it. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you can't explain what new arguments or evidence might be provided by these people who watch the category... it's really just process for the sake of process. Do you actually think relisting would produce a different result? If there's a reason why, beyond process, we'd be happy to relist it. --W.marsh 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have evidence, because I personally don't have any opinion on whether it should be deleted or not and am not familiar with the language. However, as a maintainer of
    WP:CL, it came to my attention through the deletions page that it was deleted without real discussion, which concerns me. I believe that relisting would get more substantive discussion because the editor who notified about it would participate, as well as other watchers of the WP:CL delsort. I don't know what the result would be, I'm just annoyed when I see a deletion "discussion" that includes no participation from people actually involved in the topic (whether the specific article or conlangs generally). Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Why not initiate a discussion at the talk page of
      WP:CL and request undeletion/relisting only if that discussion produces a useful result (i.e. evidence of notability or counterarguments to the deletion nomination)? Relisting a discussion if there is a new argument to be made is one thing, but relisting simply to see whether new arguments may be made seems like process for it's own sake. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Basically, because that seems to be a rather roundabout approach. The editor who posted about it to WP:CL presumably wishes to present an argument against its deletion; I am just helping make that happen. Moreover, AIUI, DRV is intended more to address problems in past XfDs - e.g. improper closing, inadequate discussion, lack of coverage of some new data, etc - rather than being an argument about whether it should be deleted per se. So that's how I'm treating it - I'm complaining about the lack of discussion there, on the basis that I believe that would change with a relist. (I also think it's a lot easier to have a discussion about deletion when one actually has access to the article and can perhaps edit it to address concerns...) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      DRV is for new evidence and new arguments, though. People say "DRV is not round 2 of AFD" because some people start a DRV just to say "Nobody agreed with me at AFD, maybe some people will agree with the same stuff at DRV" and that's generally agreed to not be a good use of DRV. Anything new though is welcome at DRV and gives us a real reason to overturn a decision. However, speculation that something new could possibly be thought of probably isn't going to fly. --W.marsh 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Geobox categories – Deletions endorsed –
desat 07:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Geobox categories (restore|cache|CfD)

I was the closer of this discussion, and am requesting a review following complaints by the maintainer (User:Caroig) of the {{geobox}} template, which had been adapted to auto-populate a series of categories listed in the CfD, including Category:Geobox Range, Category:Geobox River, Category:Geobox Valley and Category:Geobox Settlement.

The nominator (

WP:CAT

".

Other "delete arguments included:

Categories in the main namespace are intended for the reader, but these are intended for editors
We don't label articles based on the infobox they use, unless someone finds a good reason
Geobox", an in-wikipedia abbreviation, should not be part of content displayed in main namespace

These geobox categories refer not to an attribute of the article's subject, but to the use of a presentation feature, so I examined the debate to see if there was a strong consensus and/or persuasive argument to override guidelines in this case.

I didn't see anything persuasive. Arguments for keeping included:

The precedent of the maintenance categories "Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007"
The categories don't "trace the usage of the Geobox template but rather denotes articles in a given area which are described using easily parseable geodata"
anyone commenting on Geoboxes as such to at least have a look at what they are before suggesting such a far fetched measure as to ditch the whole system
To keep track of what's done

None of those arguments looked well-grounded in guidelines.

"Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007" is one of a number of categories identifying articles in need of attention, but these categories were for articles which had already received attention: they tracked what was done, rather what was left to do.
denoting articles which have geobox data is a self-reference
looking at the geoboxes as a whole seemed a bit superfluous, because there was no proposal to delete the {{geobox}} template; the issue at CfD was simply whether geobox should auto-populate these categories
We don't have other mainspace categories for jobs done, only for critical jobs awaiting attention

In closing the debate, I noted that in addition to the guidelines cited, there were many precedents at CfD for either deleting or moving to talkpages categories which referred to sourcing of data or features of how the articles were structured,most notably CfD 2007 March 24#"By-source categories".

There were three !votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and one to rename, but per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus, I attached little weight to the arguments of the "keep" voters, whose arguments run counter to the existing guidelines; in particular, they offered no reasons for making geobox an exception to the principle of avoiding self-references which could not be equally applied to many other infoboxes.

So I closed the CfD as "delete", noting (because of the strength of feeling expressed) that I expected some editors to be dissatisfied and asking any concerned to raise the matter on my talk page. I received one message from Caroig (see Deletion of Geobox categories). I was wary of replying, because so much of what was raised seemed to have little to do with the deletion, and more to do with other related disputes; so I set the issue aside to think about, but unfortunately got sidetracked and didn't return to the issue.

The next point thing I heard was a note from Darwinek that the categories had been re-created. The names were slightly different, but all included the word "geobox" and were substantively the same, so I took these to be re-creations and speedy deleted them per

WP:CSD#G4

.

Subsequent discussion with Caroig, (on my talk and on Caroig's) shows that Caroig is deeply dissatisfied. My suggestion of a DRV was declined, and Caroig says that this requires arbcom and ANI etc, but I thought it would be helpful to seek a review here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this new. Now that the categories have been deleted, I am unable to visualize how they work and what they look like. If this is going to get general discussion, it needs some generally understandable examples for those who do not work on such articles. DGG (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the original CFD closure and the subsequent G4 speedy deletion. These categories grouped articles on the basis of the type of infobox that they use; we don't categorise articles on the basis of the type of infobox that they use. (It is an attribute of the article, not the article's subject; maintenance categories are an exception because - as noted by BHG - they indicate work to be done). The 'keep' arguments at the CFD, aside from including elements of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, mainly insisted that the categories were useful. However, they never explained why the category absolutely must appear in the mainspace. Templates used by a WikiProject belong on the talk page, and simple tracking of "work done" can be accomplished through Special:Whatlinkshere or, again, via the talk page. (More technically-knowledge people can probably think of other options.) No reason was offered for making an exception to categorisation guidelines and ample precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'll add my detailed reasoning as soon as my time (and tiredness) allows, I hope for some patience. There were actually two auto-categorizing systems, the first one had indeed some issues (and was rather badly designed) which the second one tried to address.

As of declining the DRV, BrownHairedGirl first suggested posting objections to her closing the CfD which I did (here), unfortunately, it went unanswered for almost two weeks. Nonetheless, when I added the second auto-categorization scheme, it got attention almost instanteously and was deleted immediately and only then my original comments got some answer and apologies. This post is the first one where all the objections are clearly summarized.

As of my reasons for arbitration, there were other discussions before CfD, where various false allegations and statements were made and the reason is not just this deletion. I'll post the links with time chronology and comments together with my detailed explanation (they can be found in the above mentioned link too), they're paramount to understand my dissatisfaction. – Caroig (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the reason that the recreated categories got my prompt attention is that I was promptly notified; I had otherwise forgotten about this issue. I understand that you have had some disputes with other editors, but unless those are really related to the outcome of this CfD, issues such as false accusations might be better suited to an
WP:RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse and ??????? - I looked at Category:Geobox Monument. Some how, it redirected to a template or from a template and read: "1. REDIRECT Template:Geobox message/category". To me, that was a red flag. The above discussion mentions something about the categories linking to infoboxes. These categories appears to be used in some fancy, shmancy system. What's wrong with using Category:Monuments and memorials? You slap it on the bottom of a monument article and move on. If you want to develop a bot that assists in categorizing articles, that's fine. But don't mess with the categories to create some sort of Rube Goldberg system. We're better off following the KISS principle on this one. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In deleting the recreated categories, I came across several categories which #REDIRECTed to others, rather than using {{Category redirect}}. I think that they are all gone now, but it might be worthwhile for someone to see if there are more such categories lingering out there. As a side note, irrelevant to this DRV, the comment about a Rube Goldberg system prompts me to note that {{geobox}} is a huge piece of code (just short of 100KB), and it relies on several further sub-templates. I don't know what the conventions and guidelines suggest about this, but I can see a possibility of server load issues and questions about maintainability. The results look good, but geobox is not an application of the KISS principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As someone who does a lot of infobox work, I can see how see the categories could be helpful for some type of maintenance function, but the question is: could these categories be recreated when an actual maintenance task is needed to be performed? When a task becomes evident where the categories would be helpful; just recreate them. When the task is done, ask to have them deleted again. One can also use the "what transcludes here" function in AWB to run tasks on the pages linking to geobox. —MJCdetroit 05:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep it simple and use common sense. General precedence is to not use system categories in main namespace (excluding several crucial ones). Keeping these categories would set a dangerous precedence which could lead to one day when WP would be just a garbage can. Wikipedia should be simple for readers and should not endorse dangerous experiments. - Darwinek 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Caroig (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story This issue now speads on too many pages and thus is too difficult for anyone to follow so I'll try to sum it up a bit here, giving the necessary links for those who'd wish to look into the matter more in deatil. I accept I might sound a bit edgy and that's now difficult for me to expect good faith from certain users after all that's been written, after so many discussions were dismissed, numerous false statements were made, so many off-topic comments … I simply think that this issue could have been handled in a decent way, if there were any objections, they should have been clearly stated first at one place and then a normal discusssion should have followed.

The Geobox The Geobox is an infobox template that can be used for any geographical feature. It produces a neat output while the data is entered in a simple way that is transparent without a need to study the documentation unless the user whishes to use it's advanced features. There are many of these such as unit conversions, automated locator dot placement or location overlay maps, automatic field value calculations. If a user wishes to add an infobox to some geography related articles with a map from their area they can use just one template, without a need to look for a suitable infobox for river, settlement, national park, cave … They can learn to use just one template. It also gives the reader advantage of always being presented the data in a unified style. The unified data format also enables any automated tool to easily parse it. See a Geobox for a

protected area, a settlement, a castle ruin, a bridge, a bell, it's being considered for User:Kranar drogin/Geobox race track

.

There are two version of the Geoboxes. First, there were feature specific templates such as {{Geobox River}}, {{Geobox Mountain Range}}. These have been replaced by a more powerful single {{Geobox}}, which is fully backward compatible with any previous Geobox, to upgrade all you need to do is replace e.g. {{Geobox River … with {{Geobox | River …. The new system is easier to maintain, enables the template to be used for any geography related feature without any additional coding. For the record, {{Geobox River}} is, as of writing this, used in 5120 pages with most major river using it, {{Geobox Settlement}} in 1825 pages, {{Geobox Mountain Range}} in 189 pages (there's no other template for ranges), {{Geobox Protected Area}} in 230 pages, {{Geobox Region}} in 134 pages and the new {{Geobox}} in 1273 pages.

The code's pretty big, yet the technical Pre-expand include size, Post-expand include size and Template argument size are well bellow any recommended values (check e.g. Necpaly, where most of these values are generated by the Geobox template and compare it to e.g. New York City with no Geobox but numerous referencing templates and also notice the terrible lag in generating the page after any edit.) This is another example of off-topic comment. It's fair to object to the size of the code but that's not what we're discussing here.

None of the original versions created any categories whatsoever nor did the new geobox until on 2007-09-23 a user expressed an interest in some tracking system and I suggested two solutions. In Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-10-14 (bottom part of the section) the first auto-categorization was announced, while some users appreciated some users were objecting but their objections were of just personal opinion nature. Anyway I clearly stated that should majority of users disagree the feature would be removed, that it was simply a try out and asked for any ideas.

CfD On 2007-10-19 User:Darwinek put a suggestion on my talk page. The section started with "May I have a suggestion?". He and later another user made just vague comments: "I think these categories shouldn't show up", "I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT". The discussions should have been better put on the Geobox talk page as the topic had already been discussed there. Anyway, if these users were so sure there was something bad with these categories it should have been clearly expressed. I repeated the catgories weren't necessary and looked-up a part of the policy I thought they might have been referring to and offered my view. Nothing happened for some time.

I was surprised the discussion didn't continue and some days later the category appeared at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Geobox categories. Only then I discovered Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2#Question and was real shocked, I was accused of breaking dozens of policies by snapping in their links only, accused of being unwilling to cooperate and claiming ownership, "dunking" the Geobox 2 template was brought too, it was claimed the previous discussion hadn't lead anywhere (while those who objected didn't continue in the previous discussion), off topic issue of creating an unapproved bot was used; no-one ever stated the "categories were needed" etc. After numerous calls to start a discussion it was opened at Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories.

I thought the main discussion was being held on the Geobox talk page and \s the opinions expressed didn't create any consensus I concetrated on explaining my views at the Geobox talk page. Yet a few days after, the discussion was closed, the result being, though they were so many conflicting views, to delete and it was carried out promptly. The admin who closed the discussion suggested any objections be posted on her talk page first which I did yet didn't get any answer for almost two weeks. I also started, as the guidelines suggest,

WP:JUSTAVOTE

)?

Auto categorization The first auto-categorization system was not the best because of more issues which I acknowledged at RfD, namely:

The names of those auto categories were not very helpful to uninvolved reader
The scheme created too many "red-linked" categories which had to be set-up manually
The names didn't follow the recommended category naming guidelines

I first asked at the RfD if the suggested new scheme would be OK and as there was no further input I implemented them in good faith I addressed most of the problems, mainly as expressed by User:SEWilco, he/she offered various versions, e.g. "Category:Wikipedia Geobox Settlement in Slovakia". And how the scheme worked:

any article using the Geobox would have been put into a "Category:TYPEs with geodata" (e.g. Settlements with geodata) unless
a region related template were set-up, e.g. {{Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia}} which could have put the articles into any categories, both existing or some new ones. I set-up temporary categories such as "Category:Settlements in Slovakia with geodata" and reasoned these might be used while the region (at that time Slovakia, Czech Republic and Illinois) were being worked on, i.e. a Geobox was being added systematically for each and every settlement (not by myself, I added just a few, for regions I knwo or where I could supply some images, e.g. Blatnica, Slovakia). It would help differentiate from those settlements which didn't have a geobox so far. And when all settlements had been "geoboxed", the {{Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia}} would be tweaked to put all Slovak settlements into the standard "Villages in Slovakia" etc. categories. So those "with geodata" categories would have existed only temporarily. I do not undestand one thing, while it is reasoned the categories are for readers, the technical, editorial only categories such as "Articles with unsourced statement since August 2007" are OK though they are hardly of any benefit for the reader, esp. ehen there are five of them as in Bratislava. If they are there to inform the reader there's something wrong with the article then why is there the big box at the top of the page doing the same? I do not think the boxes are a good idea at all because a reader who's not familiar with Wikipedia policies might, when coming to the page, think something like "I shouldn't read the article at all, there's some serious trouble with it, it's been hacked or what." While a user or a reader, who would click on "Villages in Slovakia with geodata" would see there were many pages in the area which use that infobox, which is therefore probably a standard one and if they wanted to add their village, they would probably use it. Even if they were not going to do any edit, they could browse thru villages which are described in the same way, always with maps etc. From these reasons I do not think the use of creating further category-like templates which would only serve for tracking using the "What links here" would be helpful. Besides, while these would be usable with e.g. AWB, where you can create a list and sort it in any way, the categories can be used directly from the browser, even by inexperience users. One editor also asks if it is such a problem to paste a category at the bottom of the page. It's not, but it only works if the user knows what category to use for the location and if they don't forget to do so. If the categories are emitted by the template, the categorisation will always be systematic and transparent and should anyone want to recategorize the articles, they would just tweak one template. I would still prefer those Geoboxes which do not have a detailed category assigned to be put into Category:TYPEs with geodata though using multiple blank templates (using just one whatlinksher for the {{Geobox}} deson't help at all as it might be used for river, mountain, bridge) might work as well, yet it is not so practical. I consider this the core of my proposal.

Objections While I personally don't care very much whether the categories are allowed to exist or not, I defend them as many users find them useful and as I strongly object that this feature which doesn't violate any basic principles on which Wikipedia is built, which is created in good faith to help both readers and editors is dismissed just beacuse they go against some rules and policies, while according to other policies thay might exist. There are obviously two contradicting approaches, a technical one: they go against policies thus they're bad and users': they help. It's my understanding of how Wikipedia works (which is expressed in

WP:WIARM

) that the rules and guidelines aren't to be followed blindly but be used to help improve Wikipedia. I'd also appreciate some comments on this issue as this was something I wanted to be brought up at arbitration.

I'd also like to ask anyone if they think something's not OK and in conflict with the policies to quote the line from the policy instead of just pasting "breaking WP:XXX". I wrote at the beginning I didn't find anything in the

WP:CAT

that would say the auto-categories were bad. The problem's these are just guidelines, a lot of things are expressed rather vaguely and when I read the chapter I look (and possibly everyone does) for the points that support my views and even this is subject to interpretation of each and every guideline. For me personaly lines saying "this is not to be followed blindly" or "unless a good reason exist" weigh more than lines saying "this shouldn't be" (which is not: this mustn't be).

And finally, I was accused of claming ownership by User:Darwinek. It's true that I'm the main editor who set these templates up and does most of the editing. However I'm not the main user at all. In the recents months most of my wiki-editing related to dealing with various users' requests, comments, bug reports which were all addressed. All the debates are recorded at Template_talk:Geobox and my personal talk page. I do not understand User:Darwinek's accusation as I always responded and reacted to his comments User talk:Caroig#Collapsible list, implemented what he was suggesting User talk:Caroig#Barnstar and even in past sped up creation of a template following his request ({{Geobox Region}}. He seems to have recently a problem with the Geoboxes for reasons unkown, he discourgaed User:Kotniski from using the geoboxes on Polish settlements saying the Infoboxes were aggreed to be used on Poland only while other templates are in used as well, and he also reverted User:Mikeshk's edit in which he switched an Infobox to a Geobox (he's putting the Geoboxes systematically to all Czech settlements) with a "I like Infobox more" summary, which he later explained (in Czech): "but I want to have the municipalities in the Těšín region in Infoboxes" (WP:OWN?). I've never wanted and expressed that many times the geoboxes were enforced to be used, or were used to eat-up other templates. They are just here to serve those who find them useful. – Caroig (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is a deletion review, not a dispute resolution process, and it would have been more heplful for Caroig to focus on the specific question of whether the categories should have been deleted. That question is adressed near the end, when Caroig "There are obviously two contradicting approaches, a technical one: they go against policies thus they're bad and users': they help."
I'm afraid that missses the points raised at CfD: that categories referring to the technical features of webpages do not, overall, help the reader, and are in fact an impediment to the reader in he ways discussed at CfD. This is not a question of blindly applying rules, but of finding that there was no persuasive case that the benefits of these particular categories outweighrd the disadavantges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the reason I didn't consider this the best forum for the case, I wrote at the beginning the problem was more serious then the deletion of the categories, User:BrownHairedGirl urged me to post here. I'm taking a short break for a few days (real break, going hiking to the mountains) and then go for arbitration. I'd apreciate some help from another admin on how it is best to address this. There are two more contradictions in the previous post, if User:BrownHairedGirl suggests me to focus on just CfD then what about the off topic comment on the Geobox size. Secondly, if "categories referring to the technical features of webpages do not, overall, help the reader, and are in fact an impediment to the reader" then the same must apply for all other technical categories, such as "Articles missing …" which do not have any advantage for the reader whatsovever. Also, User:DGG asked for explanation what the categories did. – Caroig (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On "articles missing" etc, see the comments above from me and from Black Falcon about maintenance categories, and similar comments at the CfD.

As to arbitration, see

WP:RFAr: "A Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia" ... "it is expected that other avenues will be attempted first". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of nationality transfers in football (soccer) – Contested PROD. listing at AFD is optional if anyone wants this article deleted stil. – W.marsh 01:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I hereby contest the prod/deletion of the

list of nationality transfers in chess. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.