Category talk:Questions about entries

RFDO discussion: December 2014–January 2015
Subcategories:
 * Category:Questions about German entries
 * Category:Questions about Dutch entries
 * Category:Questions about Japanese entries
 * Category:Questions about Arabic entries
 * Category:Questions about Vietnamese entries
 * Category:Questions about Old French entries
 * Category:Questions about English entries
 * Category:Questions about Cantonese entries
 * Category:Questions about Mandarin entries
 * Category:Questions about French entries

What is this for? — Keφr 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Too bad User:Mglovesfun hasn't been around lately. Perhaps you could e-mail him. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He's still around, he just goes by the name Renard Migrant nowadays. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What?! Sockpuppetry?! Are you sure he wanted to be outed? DCDuring TALK 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not sockpuppetry because he's not using both accounts simultaneously to appear to be two people. And, otherwise I wouldn't have known since I'm not a checkuser. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. DCDuring TALK 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason I missed that post. But it was not that difficult to discover on your own, he never really got out of his way to hide it. Do you know an interesting anagram of "Renard Migrant"? — Keφr 08:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RM's knowledge-about/participation-in Wiktionary forums was enough to raise suspicion. The timing of commencement of editing and the edit pattern (languages, etc) were conclusive. I had been trying to bait an explicit self-outing, but missed them until the recent claim/admission of authorship of a vote concerning inflected forms. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys, how obvious could it be? I'm working my way though User:Mglovesfun/to do/Middle French for crying out loud. Um I seem to think the idea was an alternative to Category: entries needing attention for reader's questions. I didn't come up with the idea, it existed for Mandarin first via the template . I have no attachment to these; I suppose Information desk is a better venue. Though I don't feel strongly enough about it to say 'delete'. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My uncertainty fell short of needing to check your user contributions. Incidental information alone sufficed. In any event it was fun to try to bait you a bit in the course of discussions. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Verdict? — Keφr 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Verdict? Kept. Nobody provided any rationale to delete. Pur ple back pack 89   15:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion reopened by User:Kephir.
 * Delete, there is no reason to keep empty categories if there are no immediate plans to put something in them. —CodeCat 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the type of category that should be kept on the off chance somebody uses them. It's not like a entries-only category; it's more like an articles-tagged-for-quick-deletion category.  Keep Pur ple back pack 89   17:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That reasoning can't be considered valid, because it can be used to keep anything. You need to give a proper reason. —CodeCat 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. It can really only be used for categories full of things that get taken out of the category upon resolution.  When your question is answered, you remove the category from the page. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   17:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, but that only applies if there is a common practice to add entries to the category, and a common practice to remove them too. But there isn't either of those, at least given this discussion so far. So we can assume that these categories will never have anything added to them again. —CodeCat 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having help categories like these that no one monitors is worse than useless: it's deceptive, like leaving a road open to a bridge that's been demolished. People might waste their time adding them to entries, when they could have used . Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Tea Room. Evidently nobody is finding or using it anyway, since the categories are empty, whereas we do get questions about entries posted on other pages such as WT:FB and WT:TR. Equinox ◑ 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. From reading the category tops, it seems they were populated by, which is now redirected to via ; see also related RFM: Template_talk:attention --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per DanP and Equinox. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aha! I think I held off on deleting these categories at the time I redirected the template (per the RFM Dan links to) because they were still full, due to the slowness with which the redirection propagated through the site, and I didn't want to delete them until I'd checked for and fixed any entries that had been placed into the categories manually. But it seems that there were no such entries, and IMO both the RFM discussion and the above discussion show a consensus that having two attention categories is bad, so I'm going to delete them now. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, then. — Keφr 14:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)