Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?
We all know that this is a gross breach of procedure, but where does policy actually say this? The category
- I am indeed completely unaware that a category created today by WP:BRD, since edits that consist of inclusion of categories would then be an exemption from the standard BRD procedure. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes; in fact at least two editors were adding articles to it. I have restored most, but I expect not all removals - currently it has 26 members. No doubt a cfd will be launched, but however that goes, the general point remains. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- A statement such as "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting its definition should not be removed from it." might be sufficient (it shouldn't be necessary, but...). Do you have an example where the article clearly fits the category, yet was removed from it? DexDor (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed - anything now in Category:Remarried royal consorts, because I restored them after the category was completely emptied. They were being removed with a standard edit summary "This is trivial. An encyclopedia does not benefit from this sort of category. Please see WP:Defining. Otherwise might as well have a category for "queens taller than 170 cm"." and variants. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Would that also cover categories such as Category:Queens shorter than 170 cm, Category:US presidents who have bragged about groping women, Category:British princes who have used racial slurs, etc? There are articles clearly (and verifiably) meeting these definitions. I do hope it would be okay to revert the addition of something like that without waiting for a couple of weeks. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't take that long in clear cases - you should try looking at Cfd discussions. But yes, you should wait. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% on this and am sincerely sorry that you, when trying to have a constructive discussion, are subjected to the kind of needless & anything-but-helpful sarcasm & ridicule which I have asked that user many many times for many many years to try to avoid. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't take that long in clear cases - you should try looking at Cfd discussions. But yes, you should wait. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- There would probably need to be provision for reversion of categorisations that violate ) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedies should cover that. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Re BLP (etc) - either the category isn't supported by info in the article (in which case the category tag can be removed from the article) or the info is in the article (in which case that's the more important issue as readers are more likely to see it). DexDor (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- A statement such as "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting its definition should not be removed from it." might be sufficient (it shouldn't be necessary, but...). Do you have an example where the article clearly fits the category, yet was removed from it? DexDor (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes; in fact at least two editors were adding articles to it. I have restored most, but I expect not all removals - currently it has 26 members. No doubt a cfd will be launched, but however that goes, the general point remains. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd add a bit to DexDor's proposed text, "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting its definition should not be removed from it. If you think a category should be completely deleted, or renamed, you should propose this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion." Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem I have with that is the potential for POV categorization. For example, Category:Cybernetics clearly should exist; there's no way it's going to be deleted. But the most aggressive cybernetic apologists would write a definition that would rope in most of mathematics, most of computer science, most of a whole bunch of other things. Getting consensus to change that definition might be difficult, because you'd be on their "turf" so to speak. But that should not license spamming the category around to all the articles that meet the expanded definition. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Whether particular articles are "clearly meeting its definition" (per the proposed wording) is an entirely different matter, which we are used to dealing with, here and at category and article talk (in fact cfd should be used more often for such discussions, rather than just deletions and renames) . The proposed wording would not affect the situation here. One good thing about having Category:Remarried royal consorts as the example is that there are afaik no disputes about facts, which will actually be the case for the great majority of categories. The changes are only intended to state clearly what has been accepted policy for well over a decade. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- My concern is that they might clearly meet the definition, but the definition itself (as written in the category page) might be over-expansive, and difficult to change. If you made it that they clearly meet the plain meaning of the name of the category, independent of any text that appears on the category page, that would somewhat alleviate my concern. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the definition in the category text is over-expansive then that should be fixed. Sometimes that can be done by aligning the text with the definitions in parent categories. If another editor (most likely the category creator) objects (and that can't be resolved) then take the category to CFD. In some cases it may be better to go straight to CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- My point is that , if the definition is over-expansive, it should be legitimate to argue that at the article being categorized, rather than at the category page, and refuse to accept the category based on no consensus to include it at the article talk page. As long as that is made clear, I am OK with this. --Trovatore (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the definition in the category text is over-expansive then that should be fixed. Sometimes that can be done by aligning the text with the definitions in parent categories. If another editor (most likely the category creator) objects (and that can't be resolved) then take the category to CFD. In some cases it may be better to go straight to CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- My concern is that they might clearly meet the definition, but the definition itself (as written in the category page) might be over-expansive, and difficult to change. If you made it that they clearly meet the plain meaning of the name of the category, independent of any text that appears on the category page, that would somewhat alleviate my concern. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Whether particular articles are "clearly meeting its definition" (per the proposed wording) is an entirely different matter, which we are used to dealing with, here and at category and article talk (in fact cfd should be used more often for such discussions, rather than just deletions and renames) . The proposed wording would not affect the situation here. One good thing about having Category:Remarried royal consorts as the example is that there are afaik no disputes about facts, which will actually be the case for the great majority of categories. The changes are only intended to state clearly what has been accepted policy for well over a decade. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem I have with that is the potential for POV categorization. For example, Category:Cybernetics clearly should exist; there's no way it's going to be deleted. But the most aggressive cybernetic apologists would write a definition that would rope in most of mathematics, most of computer science, most of a whole bunch of other things. Getting consensus to change that definition might be difficult, because you'd be on their "turf" so to speak. But that should not license spamming the category around to all the articles that meet the expanded definition. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Re. "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting its definition should not be removed from it" – oppose this wording, which, BTW, also does not conform to WP:BLPCAT) rather err towards exclusion of some cats, until there's a clear and well-founded consensus on inclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can't at all see how it conflicts with ) 00:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Does WP:Overcategorization not do enough to stop this sort of thing? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nooooo - how is that even relevant? I repeat: this is about the sneak deletion of disliked categories by emptying them, which has always been strongly condemned here. Surtsicna feels that Category:Remarried royal consorts is not defining for anyone, but instead of taking it to cfd he just emptied it,. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Johnbod here, and it’s consistent with demonstrated practice and consensus for many years. OCAT is to be considered when categories are created, and it is applied at CFD when deletion is considered. It doesn’t enable us to empty categories outside of that process or to cherry-pick inclusion for individual articles, because it’s about what types of categories should or should not exist. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- ah... found the guideline that addresses some of this: read WP:COP. This DOES address what to do when an article is inappropriately added to a category, and explicitly says that you can simply remove it. However, COP is quite narrow in its permission to remove. It does NOT anticipate someone doing mass removals or completely emptying cats. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is the bit at "Experiencing a problematic categorization / Improper categorizations" I quote a little above? Yes, this is where the text needs beefing-up to make it clear that categories should not be emptied. Of course, this page is just ") 14:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- COP gives some poor/inaccurate guidance in places: “...a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.“ We don’t have categories for every job so much of this is addressed in that way. But we don’t limit categories to “why” someone is notable. Being a lawyer is a pretty significant job, not something you do for a summer during school. If someone practiced law, then they should have a lawyer category. I’ve seen people use some of the language in COP to also blank alumni categories on the basis that “they’re not notable for attending Yale” or some such nonsense. This should be fixed to conform to actual practice and common sense in line with what Johnbod raised; if someone factually belongs in an occupation. category, alumni, etc, then it shouldn’t be removed based on an editor’s subjective view that it’s not “why” they have an article, which is irrelevant to whether they meet the category’s inclusion criteria. Some categories will have thresholds as part of that criteria, such as where hobbies and jobs may intersect (chess playing, swimming, etc) but the standard is still the same for any article instead of some kind of article-specific judgment. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
But we don’t limit categories to “why” someone is notable.
) 16:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)- As noted above, CATDEFINE is about category creation, not category application. And “defining” is not the same as “reason for notability” anyway. No one is notable “because” they were from a certain place, went to a certain school, etc, yet these are considered defining facts of individuals’ lives and are supported by consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- (Off-topic, but) Yes, you get this for example in scientist categories, where people like Margaret Thatcher FRS, Dr. Brian May and so on are (rightly I think) categorized as scientists. Personally I'd say the criterion should be either a post-grad degree (May's Phd) or a first degree & some years spent working in a lab coat (Thatcher). But no doubt some athletes etc with just a Bsc & no science career are categorized as biologists, which is probably wrong. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- That’s about inclusion criteria, not basis for notability. Similarly, someone who went to law school but never actually practiced law was not a lawyer. Let me rephrase though in a way that won’t get us too far afield from your OP: if a category exists and an article verifiably meets its inclusion criteria, that article should not be removed because someone doesn’t think its about why that particular subject merited an article. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- (Off-topic, but) Yes, you get this for example in scientist categories, where people like Margaret Thatcher FRS, Dr. Brian May and so on are (rightly I think) categorized as scientists. Personally I'd say the criterion should be either a post-grad degree (May's Phd) or a first degree & some years spent working in a lab coat (Thatcher). But no doubt some athletes etc with just a Bsc & no science career are categorized as biologists, which is probably wrong. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- As noted above, CATDEFINE is about category creation, not category application. And “defining” is not the same as “reason for notability” anyway. No one is notable “because” they were from a certain place, went to a certain school, etc, yet these are considered defining facts of individuals’ lives and are supported by consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to Johnbod for opening this discussion. "Don't empty a valid category" has been accepted practice since I started with categories back in 2006, and it's amazing that it somehow hasn't been explicitly documented.
- I broadly agree with DexDor's suggested wording If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting its definition should not be removed from it" ... but I have two caveats:
- WP:CATVERmust not be overridden. Even if it seems obvious, you still need a source.
- WP:BLPapplies.
- If the wording can be tweaked to briefly include those two points, then I support adding it to ) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- PS The guidance also needs to spell out that diffusion to subcats is not removal, and is positively encouraged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm glad we are nearly all agreed that there is a long-established principle here, which has somehow managed to avoid codification. To me "a valid category" begs too many questions - "validity" under policy (other than minor matters covered by the speedy process) is what most Cfd debates are about. Category:Remarried royal consorts, the example that brought me here, shows this well. User:Surtsicna doesn't think the category is valid, emptying it with edit summaries like "This is trivial. An encyclopedia does not benefit from this sort of category. Please see WP:Defining. Otherwise might as well have a category for "queens taller than 170 cm"." If we get a Cfd we will find out if this is the community view or not. But to him it no doubt falls into the "obvious-to-all-right-thinking-people (ie me)" group - we know where that leads. Other objections above concern the different question of whether any particular article "clearly meets the category scope/definition". In fact one remarried(?) queen was removed on these ground - correctly judging by a quick skim of Jadwiga of Poland. What do you think about the comments re BLPs higher up? Diffusion to sub-cats is not always "encouraged", especially when it is User:Rathfelder doing it; his Category:Architects from Dorset got sunk and many more of his creations should be. Diffusion ought to be discussed beforehand far more often - at the moment it very rarely is. Many French and Italian trees are unusable after mad diffusion to departments and provinces. I hope we can agree wording(s), but it is unlikely that they will cover all possible situations without being very long. Do we need to add a speedy criterion of "clearly/offensive/nonsense" like the one articles have? Maybe, although I feel the categories speedy process is increasing being abused already, by-passing Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lots of good points there, @Johnbod:
- Yes, "valid category" is problematic for all the reasons you describe. I was looking for a short summary to use at WP:CATDDline: "Don't empty an existing category (see [[WP:CAT#Emptying|exceptions]])"
- I agree that some subcategorisation is too fine, and that it is sometimes done by editors who aren't v good at it. But we need to avoid guidance which deprecates good subcategorisation. It would be silly to have an editor who did something helpful like diffusing Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland by county then whacked with the guideline for "emptying" Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland.
So maybe just drop my notion of encouraging subcats, and note that subcategorisation is not emptying. - The comments above about BLPs seem to be suggesting that we need no extra guidance, because WP:BLPgoes well beyond verifiability. We don't need to spell those out; a nod to BLP is enough.
- The bottom line here is that the problem we are trying to stop is attitude expressed in the edit summary "An encyclopedia does not benefit from this sort of category". That may or may not be a reasonable view, but the way to act on it is to open a CFD and seek a consensus, not to unilaterally empty the category. We need clear guidance for editors who make that sort of mistake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, "valid category" is problematic for all the reasons you describe. I was looking for a short summary to use at
- Lots of good points there, @Johnbod:
If we had a speedy criterion for "category created without any parent categories" (with an exception for Category:Contents) then that would have applied in this particular case. Categories created without any parent categories are almost always bad ones. User:Johnbod - if there had been such a CSD option would you have used it in this case (rather than "legitimising" the category by adding parent categories)? Or if another editor (e.g. Surtsicna) had CSDed it would you have objected? DexDor (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @DexDor, I would probably oppose adding that as a CSD criterion. In my experience, well over over half of such unparented categories are actually plausible categories, just incomplete. And there is a serious risk of such a CSD criterion being abused by blanking a category page and then CSDing it as unparented.
- But whatever anyone's view on such a criterion, it's best left to a separate discussion. Please can we keep focus on the narrow issue identified by Johnbod, which is that an almost-universally accepted key principle of category management has been omitted from the guidelines ... and we need to find a form of words to incorporate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with these points. If we added a CSD criterion, I think I'd prefer one for offensive/silly/defamatory ones - eg Category:Women with big breasts (I do hope that is red - phew). What happens now if that is set up? DexDor, I've been known to add parents and members to categories in cfd & then vote for their deletion (perhaps even nominate them, can't remember). I've seen unparented categories that were good - not that many editors ever start categories & many are unsure of the basics. Sneak deletion of disliked categories by deparenting is also an issue, best dealt with another day. Looking at the cat policy pages, I think they have mostly been unchanged for years, which is good in one way, and probably possible because there is a small group of interested editors who agree on most things. But might be time to codify some other things that now rely on precedent etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- My suggestion only covers categories that were created with no parents (i.e. have never had any parents); not categories that have been de-parented. Any editor finding such a category wouldn't be obliged to CSD it; they could (i.e. if they think the category's reasonable) instead add parents. The relevance to this example is that S could have CSDed the category. DexDor (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @WP:G1is very narrowly cast, restricted to utter gibberish rather than plain silliness.
- In many topic areas, there are categories which appear daft to those not versed in the topic, but which topic experts know to be well-founded. A speedy criterion would allow such categories to be deleted without being listed at CFD daily log page, massively increasing the risk of error.
- I see no sign of any flood of such cats overwhelming CFD, so no there's no problem to be solved.
- Please, please ... can we stop keep this discussion focused on the headline issue? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
- My suggestion only covers categories that were created with no parents (i.e. have never had any parents); not categories that have been de-parented. Any editor finding such a category wouldn't be obliged to CSD it; they could (i.e. if they think the category's reasonable) instead add parents. The relevance to this example is that S could have CSDed the category. DexDor (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with these points. If we added a CSD criterion, I think I'd prefer one for offensive/silly/defamatory ones - eg Category:Women with big breasts (I do hope that is red - phew). What happens now if that is set up? DexDor, I've been known to add parents and members to categories in cfd & then vote for their deletion (perhaps even nominate them, can't remember). I've seen unparented categories that were good - not that many editors ever start categories & many are unsure of the basics. Sneak deletion of disliked categories by deparenting is also an issue, best dealt with another day. Looking at the cat policy pages, I think they have mostly been unchanged for years, which is good in one way, and probably possible because there is a small group of interested editors who agree on most things. But might be time to codify some other things that now rely on precedent etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's my take: If a category exists, any articles clearly and verifiably meeting its definition should not be removed from it so long as the inclusion of the article in the category does not violate any policies or guidelines. Instead, you should nominate the category for deletion if you disagree with its existence. Note that diffusion, defined as removing an article from a category and adding it to one or more subcategories of that category, is not considered removal for the purpose of this guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I would prefer something like satisfying the plain meaning of the category name to meeting its definition. Category definitions, as written on the category page, are rarely consulted; the issue is more the category name. --Trovatore (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- There seems to be 2 different situations here, (1) a situation where an editor believes an article or several don't belong in the category and removes them but it happens that these were the only articles the category contained at that time and thus ends up empty (and deletable under C1 after 7 days) even though the editor believes there are other articles (or future articles per WP:RED) that may exist that could be included in the category and (2) a situation where an editor thinks a category shouldn't exist at all and removes all its members in order for it to end up getting deleted under C1.
In the case of 1 I think editors should generally feel free to do this since this can often be done under
In the case of 2 I think it maybe should be frowned upon to do this but again unless the category is large or otherwise its likely to be controversial it probably shouldn't be prohibited. Given that the Remarried royal consorts category has 38 members its reasonable to say its large enough to be worth discussing. I removed the only member from
As far as an actual rule against removing all categories for reasons 1 or 2 I don't know how you could enforce it. Would this mean that editors would be prohibited from removing all members of a category? Also in the case of 1 an editor might not have even looked at the category its self and might remove a sole member from a category which results in it being empty. Also note that in comparison with CFDS where categories meeting C2F can be merged/deleted after just 2 days a category that has been emptied "out of process" has to be left for 7 days before being deleted, the same time as a standard CFD. Furthermore the watchlist now has an option to show page categorization so the author or anyone otherwise interested can see if someone removes members (I have this enabled).
A further point to consider is apart from 1 and 2 above and categories populated by templates the only other way a category can end up empty is when all its members end up getting deleted (or redirected without keeping the categories) which doesn't happen that often so if we have an issue with people emptying categories maybe we should consider removing C1? Thoughts @Johnbod and BrownHairedGirl:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @WP:BLP, is all we need.
- If a category is emptied because all of its current pages clearly belong there, that's fine. That's covered by DexDor's wording.
- If a CFD is closed as no consensus, that defaults to keep, just as with AFD. I oppose changing that practice. And removing pages from the category after a no consensus CFD wouldn't be BRD because we'd just had the discussion ... and emptying the category would be de facto deletion by the back door.
- Please can we just do this, and keep it simple? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I provided a large response because although the question was mainly about 1 issue of an inappropriate category there are the 2 other situations to consider and the title of this section is about emptying categories you don't like. This is certainly an issue brought up before so a better consensus on how to deal with this in general is helpful.
- With AFDs its quite simple in that the inclusion/deletion of the article only affects the article its self (other than pages that redirect to it) so if there's no consensus its reasonable to give the author(s) the benefit of the doubt and keep it. With a category on the other hand if its added to other pages and editors object to that and start a CFD which ends up as "no consensus" why should that result in leaving the category being on the disputed pages(s)? If any other content is added to a page and someone objects to it, it is reverted per BRD/NOCONSENSUS although there might not be consensus to delete the category its self there's no consensus for the edit(s) that added it to other pages and therefore the status quo ante should be restored on the pages it was added to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, the question, fairly clearly expressed in the header, I hope, is your 2). That is where new policy wording is proposed; there have been no wording proposals for your 1), although despite Bhg's pleas, people keep drifting off to discuss it (partly because of issues around "clearly" Dexdor's wording admittedly). Re 2), if you think "it maybe should be frowned upon to do this but again unless the category is large or otherwise its likely to be controversial it probably shouldn't be prohibited" I'd suggest you are some way from the general view at Cfd for very many years. Anyway, this is a proposal to prohibit it, which of course won't entirely stop it, but hopefully will reduce it, and will give a clear justification for reverting such edits, as I did at Remarried royal consorts. Really the number of articles in a category shouldn't matter. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK so we seem to have agreement that 1 is OK, if someone empties a category because they don't think any of the pages meet its inclusion criteria that's fine. So we can stick to discussing 2. I am not aware of how people see it at CFD but it does say "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion" but I think we're taking about cases where users empty categories outside CFD. I would weakly oppose a proposal to prohibit 2 but I would generally discourage it. The number of pages does matter since adding or removing 1 or 2 pages is a lot easier than adding or removing 50 or so for example. Yes I would say that people should generally be OK to re add categories removed under 2 and ask the remover to file a CFD even if the category is newly created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we are in agreement about 1, but should treat that as a sidetrack, & leave it for now. WP:Cfd is full of noms for cats with 1 or 2 members, so I repeat that the number is irrelevant to the principle (I don't follow your logic there anyway, but never mind). The passage you quote is almost on the 2) point, but as you say let down by "once it has been nominated at CfD". Time to put up a proposed wording, and placing, that reflects this, which I'll try to do. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK so we seem to have agreement that 1 is OK, if someone empties a category because they don't think any of the pages meet its inclusion criteria that's fine. So we can stick to discussing 2. I am not aware of how people see it at CFD but it does say "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion" but I think we're taking about cases where users empty categories outside CFD. I would weakly oppose a proposal to prohibit 2 but I would generally discourage it. The number of pages does matter since adding or removing 1 or 2 pages is a lot easier than adding or removing 50 or so for example. Yes I would say that people should generally be OK to re add categories removed under 2 and ask the remover to file a CFD even if the category is newly created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, the question, fairly clearly expressed in the header, I hope, is your 2). That is where new policy wording is proposed; there have been no wording proposals for your 1), although despite Bhg's pleas, people keep drifting off to discuss it (partly because of issues around "clearly" Dexdor's wording admittedly). Re 2), if you think "it maybe should be frowned upon to do this but again unless the category is large or otherwise its likely to be controversial it probably shouldn't be prohibited" I'd suggest you are some way from the general view at Cfd for very many years. Anyway, this is a proposal to prohibit it, which of course won't entirely stop it, but hopefully will reduce it, and will give a clear justification for reverting such edits, as I did at Remarried royal consorts. Really the number of articles in a category shouldn't matter. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
New draft
Taking into account the comments above, I'd propose adding to
- "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting the definition in the category name should not be removed from it, other than for diffusion to a subcategory, or because they are repeated in a sub-category (per WP:CFD. Disagreements over the scope of categories, or whether particular articles fit the category, should be resolved on talk pages of the articles or category, or if necessary by a Cfd discussion."
- "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting the definition in the category name should not be removed from it, other than for diffusion to a subcategory, or because they are repeated in a sub-category (per
To Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, perhaps just add:
- "Don't empty a disliked category; start a deletion discussion at WP:CFD.
- "Don't empty a disliked category; start a deletion discussion at
- Comments (brief if possible) & support/oppose, below please. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Support as proposer, and notes. I thought it necessary to add that removing cats duplicated at levels in a tree per OCAT is ok - this is very likely the most common reason cats are removed from articles. For the FAQ page, there is already: "(header) How do I delete a category? (text) If you feel a category falls within Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, bring it up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion." -this should be added after that I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose complete ban there's no need for this restriction per BRD, BURO and our general editing policy. I would however suggest something like:
- "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting the definition in the category name should generally not be removed from it, other than for diffusion to a subcategory, or because they are repeated in a sub-category (per WP:CFD. Disagreements over the scope of categories, or whether particular articles fit the category, should be resolved on talk pages of the articles or category, or if necessary by a CFD discussion." If a category only has a few members (generally 5 or less) and you consider its deletion uncontroversial you may empty it, either by removing the category completely or by moving it to a parent category. If anyone objects to you removing the category this way (even if the category was recently created) the members should be restored and the category nominated for discussion at CFD."
- "If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting the definition in the category name should generally not be removed from it, other than for diffusion to a subcategory, or because they are repeated in a sub-category (per
- Would this do better? Note that Category:Villages in Aberdeen has been deleted but should probably be restored by this reason and sent to CFD if deletion is desired. Given as noted people can watchlist categories I can't see how a ban would be needed since any other addition or content can be edited out by anyone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I strongly oppose this variation. It goes against the longstanding CFD consensus not to empty out of process, and it opens a backdoor which allows the demolition of categories which are under construction. Because of the way categories are structured, it is difficult to track how many pages were in a category before it was empty and deleted, so the numerical threshold is very hard to police.
- It seems to me that Crouch, Swale's proposal is based on a misapplication of WP:C1, so emptying a category without discussion amounts to a form of bold deletion.
- This issue runs throughout CS's comments in this discussion. A category consists of the category page and the entries on each page in the category. CS has been trying to treat them separately, which would create absurd contradictions:e.g. that a consensus at CFD to delete a category doesn't amount to a consensus to remove the entry from each page in the category.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes its relatively difficult to track the pages in a category but as noted this is easier than in the past due to the fact that the watchlist now supports this. BRD doesn't permit the deletion of an article but if a category is emptied it can be deleted under C1 once its been tagged for at least 7 days (as a result of this discussion which is the same time as a PROD, AFD or CFD anyway) and the author is generally notified so they can re-populate it if they object. As Johnbod notes this wouldn't actually stop people from doing this but it would be clearer for people reverting (which my proposal allows anyway) but the only difference is that people who know this rule and follow it will use CFD instead, it doesn't stop those who don't know it or refuse to follow it. Again I'd question how often categories are emptied accidentally or due to all the pages being deleted v categories that are emptied intentionally. I don't expect the other 2 happen very often and in any case it might not even be easy (or possible) to determine if a category was emptied accidentally, if it was emptied in order to delete it or even if it was emptied in bad faith. Like with speedy deletion and PROD/XFD the responsibility lies with the deleting admin not the person tagging (as was noted in the RHaworth Arbcom case) so its the responsibility of the admins to ensure the category should be deleted (yes this isn't always easy but that's also the case with the other ways of being emptied as noted). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Johnbod's elegantly-worded draft captures the longstanding consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Johnbod's words would do me. Rathfelder (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support without the S-C variation. Oculi (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – I've emptied categories to get them deleted (for clarity: unintended doubles with maybe two or three articles in them – really not the kind of category that should be dragged to CfD for a week-long procedure), so no, this proposed guidance is fishy, and I oppose it strongly, for this and other reasons (as already mentioned before) – the new wording does not address the previous objections either, and is just the most objectionable WP:RULECRUFT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- The objections you raised previously have indeed been reflected in the new draft; now you have a new lot. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think before we worry about the wording of the proposal, we need to answer the fundamental question: If someone wants to delete a category which is theoretically non-empty (i.e. there are articles which do fit the criteria of the category, regardless of whether they are currently in the category or not), should all such requests go to CfD, or should there be a lighter process similar to 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The answer to that is very clear above - they need to go to Cfd. I floated the idea of adding a speedy criterion, but this was rejected. I don't know about "theoretically non-empty" - if categories are empty they will get deleted pretty quickly, unless filled/refilled, and regardless of potential. The point is to prevent gaming to avoid cfd, by emptying. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think before we worry about the wording of the proposal, we need to answer the fundamental question: If someone wants to delete a category which is theoretically non-empty (i.e. there are articles which do fit the criteria of the category, regardless of whether they are currently in the category or not), should all such requests go to CfD, or should there be a lighter process similar to 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The objections you raised previously have indeed been reflected in the new draft; now you have a new lot. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion does assume that all categories are clearly defined, which is not true. But perhaps if it were adopted we might improve that. Rathfelder (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as is. I'm concerned with this part:
If a category is considered inappropriate as a whole, it should not be emptied, but a deletion discussion started at
WP:CATDEF) from a category in order to bypass CFD. Place Clichy (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Place Clichy seems to be putting his money where his mouth is. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: another case now at CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_1#Category:Film_controversies Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per proposer. If emptying categories is being used as an instrumental means of achieving deletion, the list of deletion justifications should be amended with the real deletion reason in those cases; "it's a useful pretext for undocumented but reasonable deletions" is not a valid rationale for blocking the inclusion of this language in WP:CAT. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - as drafted it won't solve the problem raised, because the language "clearly meeting the definition" is, obviously, very, very subjective. It also doesn't address defining, and it somewhat circumvents the normal consensus-based editing process. Example: Someone creates Category:Foo and adds it to articles X, Y, and Z. If editors don't think Foo is defining for X, they should be permitted to remove the category from X. Any disputes about that should be handled at Talk:X. Now if the same thing happens at Y and Z (editors don't think it's "defining"), then the category will become empty, at which point it should be deleted. If it happens that the same editors participate at Talk:X, Talk:Y, and Talk:Z, that's fine, that's not a problem, and in fact it's to be expected, since X, Y, and Z are probably going to be in the same or similar topic areas (if they're in the same category). Additionally, in this hypothetical, Cat:Foo would have been added boldly to X, Y, and Z. There is no reason that we should prevent editors from being able to revert that bold addition. So if Cat:Foo is boldly added to X, Y, and Z, and then those bold additions are reverted, Cat:Foo would be empty and should be deleted. Ultimately, this proposal allows a category to be boldly created but then it can't be reverted; the bold creation must go to CFD. That's inefficient and extremely ripe for abuse. Bottom line, I don't support a system that will allow just anyone to boldly categorize any article in a new category, but not allow the normal editing process to undo it, instead requiring, effectively, all new categories to have to go to CFD to be deleted. (I would be more supportive of the exact opposite policy: editors should have to seek consensus first before creating new categories.) Ultimately, anyone depopulating categories in bad faith should be sanctioned for it, but that doesn't mean we need to stop everyone from ever depopulating a new category without going to CSD first. I trust on balance that our colleagues can exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis. In the example given, re-married concubines, I agree that it's not defining for any of the members and should not have been created boldly. I see no reason to force the community to spend time at CFD to delete a category that was created boldly. Like WP:V, the onus of gaining consensus should be upon the editors seeking to create a new category, not the editors opposing the creation. Lev!vich 15:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Defining" is an absolutely key concept in our categorization policies, and always has been. Although there is no really tight definition of it, in the way you might like, in practice this doesn't cause that many problems at CFD etc - where there is a dispute it is settled by consensus, as it should be. Yes, making people follow procedures can always be described as "inefficient", but the alternative is much worse. The purpose of these changes is to prevent the increasing number of very time-consuming wrangles like the current one at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Out-of-process_category_deletions_by_user:Hyacinth. In fact launching a Cfd is pretty easy - regulars fire off great bursts of them - and the nominator doesn't have to return to them. The community largely ignores CFD in fact - most discussions are only attended by a few regulars who know the ropes (can't remember ever seeing you there, btw) . The out-of-process deleters typically lack understanding of policy and ongoing consensus, & act on their own opinions; when the issue comes to CFD these are typically not upheld in my experience. I'd be fine with a "consensus to create a category" policy, but I'm not sensing that would be popular with many commenting here. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes like I said I don't see a problem with temporarily allowing the pages to have the category but indeed if there's no consensus then logically the category should be removed not retained. I don't think I'd go as far as requiring discussion before creating categories but like WP:V I don't think its fair on those who don't agree with the category to be expected to gain consensus to have it removed from articles (and remain if there is "no consensus"). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support/BLP Comment I think it's good to have this written down somewhere to demonstrate our intent although I'm not confident it will change most day-to-day behavior. The only reservation I have is with some categories with BLP issues (demon possession is the one that sticks in my head) where I'm gonna clear out the living people and then come to CFD to nominate it and tell you what I purged in the nomination. I'm confident that approach is acceptable but not sure if the current wording will allow it. BLP came up way up above in the conversation but I'm wondering if some further rewording might be in order. Even without such a change, I still support the current draft. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:C2D addition
- In section C2D I have added:
- * Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider if it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.
- I am assuming that this is uncontroversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- This seems sensible, following this discussion at CFD Sept 28. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- No objection, that reflects consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Speedy G4 for Category:Places named after Thomas Jefferson
I originally tagged this category for speedy deletion on Nov. 14 based on
- @JJMC89: There are four additional populated categories now under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that could use review, without presupposing any outcomes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert emptying categories during discussion
I've been fairly sporadic for a very long time, and don't know the current landscape. Although I'm utterly amazed that BrownHairedGirl and Good Olfactory and Carlossuarez (and others) are still keeping the flame alive after all these years.
Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) has emptied categories that s/he has nominated, and target categories that were suggested for merger. We've had multiple examples in the past month. S/he is an experienced wikipedian, so I'd expected better behavior. What is the best response?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Category:China Shipping Group has been submitted to deletion review
RfC on categorizing redirects to the same namespace
Please see: Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants category
Just wanting to make sure I did this right.. this category was recently recreated by a user, despite the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants which resulted in its deletion. I believe that the speedy deletion tag was correct, as it was unpopulated, and actually contained a table (can be viewed here) which is not for category pages like this. Again, just wanting to check and make sure I handled this correctly. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Performers in a show
I remember that categories that are "performers in a show" were deprecated years ago and fall under
Delete without prejudice to re-creation
What (if anything) does "delete without prejudice to re-creation" mean? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- ) 00:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, i.e. the current contents are not worth keeping. Also, 08:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Soft vs hard redirects
I was surprised to discover that we have around 100k "soft" category redirects. In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Redirecting_categories it says that this is 'because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects', but I think that's outdated information since a simple test seems to work OK. Probably there is something I'm missing here as to why these can't be done as normal redirects? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can redirect the category pages and I think that has been true for a long time. What you cannot do by redirecting the category page is get the articles in that redirected category page to appear in the target category. The soft redirect helps to indicate that you're in the wrong place. --Izno (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
"Faculty"
Just as I filed a bunch of speedy requests for Croatia, I realized a bunch more at Category:Faculty by university or college in Europe. What's the best way to autogenerate a list of all renamings that would stem from that? It seems like that would that need to move out of the speedy category, because with such a wide scope there could well be other options on the table - I see already that the UK category uses the word "academics"... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's global; eg Oculi (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see some inconsistency there, too, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about African higher education to be able to ascertain whether the word "faculty" is ambiguous enough there to have to be changed. I followed your objection and moved the .hr-related proposal to CFR at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Category:University of Zagreb faculty, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 'Faculty' is ambiguous. 'Faculties' is not ambiguous (in the university sense). 'Faculty' (a collective noun for staff) is American, 'academics' is UK, some Universities in the Commonwealth will use 'academics'. There is no ambiguity between 'XXX faculty' (which cannot possibly mean buildings) and 'XXX faculties', which cannot possibly mean people. Oculi (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 'Faculty' in the British sense is not a building. Its a department. Rathfelder (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK then - 'XXX faculty' (which cannot possibly mean departments). Oculi (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK then - 'XXX faculty' (which cannot possibly mean departments).
- 'Faculty' in the British sense is not a building. Its a department. Rathfelder (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- 'Faculty' is ambiguous. 'Faculties' is not ambiguous (in the university sense). 'Faculty' (a collective noun for staff) is American, 'academics' is UK, some Universities in the Commonwealth will use 'academics'. There is no ambiguity between 'XXX faculty' (which cannot possibly mean buildings) and 'XXX faculties', which cannot possibly mean people.
- I see some inconsistency there, too, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about African higher education to be able to ascertain whether the word "faculty" is ambiguous enough there to have to be changed. I followed your objection and moved the .hr-related proposal to CFR at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Category:University of Zagreb faculty, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Please could any talk page watchers advise on the best venue for a more general discussion of changes to subcategories of
- @ 08:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Fayenatic london:. @Joy: for information. TSventon (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to start it at Category talk:Faculty by university or college so it's just underneath the comment saying we literally don't know who started this. *facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"old cfd multi"
Is there a template analogous to {{
- So... add it to {{old XfD multi}}?... --Izno (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- If what you wanted to say was to suggest adding this request to that template's talk page it is done: CapnZapp (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- If what you wanted to say was to suggest adding this request to that template's talk page it is done:
Request for comment on the naming of Category:Faculty by university or college and its subcategories
Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Question about "nationality"
I haven't worked in category creation in quite a while but I'm sure this question has come up before. What century can we say that "nationalities" began? I've been working with some Korean occupational categories by century and so I thought I'd see when nationality started to be a category to classify occupational categories of people on Wikipedia.
In my brief search, I found it goes back to Category:6th-century BC people by nationality and occupation. But is this determined country by country, kingdom by kingdom? The nation state is really a product of the Enlightenment so I'm not sure whether we can talk about 5th or 12th century nations in the modern sense. But I don't know what other general classification can be used for medieval Japan, Korea, Spain, India or England. Or should we just stick with what works right now?
My apologies, in advance, if this is a perennial question. When I did a search for nationality at CFD, it brought up specific categories and this is a more general question. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are being too ambitious. Categorisation is not an exact science. I try to categorise people by the countries as they were when they were there and that is hard enough even in the 14th century. What are we supposed to do with the Holy Roman Empire, for example? It was not really a country as we now understand the idea. Rathfelder (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, Perhaps the earliest nationality categories are the 34th or 33rd century BC, based on Category:34th-century BC Sumerian kings and Category:33rd-century BC Egyptian people. I think your example, Category:6th-century BC people by nationality and occupation, looks like overcategorisation as a grandparent of Category:6th-century BC Sinhalese monarchs. TSventon (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, here is a less ambitious query. In this category, most countries call schools for older students "secondary schools" but a few countries in this category call them "high schools and secondary schools". Should the terminology be standardized across countries to one or the other term? Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. TSventon (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since the terminology is not standardized in real life - with some using “high school”, others using “secondary school”, and yet others using both interchangeably, (and a few using completely different terms such as “preparatory school”), I see no reason to impose a false standardization in our categories. The current cat name seems to be good. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- For me it would really deepened on what "a few" means. If only a small amount of the of the countries call them "high schools and secondary schools" then I'd suggest standardizing it. Otherwise, not. But there's zero point in the current naming if only a few places actually call them that. Otherwise, we could also just as easily justify going with something like "preparatory school" like Blueboar says, or worse still "High schools and secondary schools and preparatory schools" just to make sure all the lowest common denominators are accounted for. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's 'secondary' in the UK and 'high' in the US so we have the usual (and inevitable) UK/US split of category names. The only other name I can see in the tree is 'lycee'. Preparatory is 'primary' in the UK and 'secondary' in the US so it would be unsatisfactory as a category name. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- With the notability guidelines for schools being changed recently and the subsequent purge of non-notable ones (which is a lot of them) that has been going on it might be worth just changing the category to "Schools by country" since a lot of the countries won't have that many (or any) high school articles to warrant categories pretty soon here anyway. In the meantime though, it really doesn't matter what specific word the category has in it as long as people know it's about schools by country. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's 'secondary' in the UK and 'high' in the US so we have the usual (and inevitable) UK/US split of category names. The only other name I can see in the tree is 'lycee'. Preparatory is 'primary' in the UK and 'secondary' in the US so it would be unsatisfactory as a category name.
- For me it would really deepened on what "a few" means. If only a small amount of the of the countries call them "high schools and secondary schools" then I'd suggest standardizing it. Otherwise, not. But there's zero point in the current naming if only a few places actually call them that. Otherwise, we could also just as easily justify going with something like "preparatory school" like Blueboar says, or worse still "High schools and secondary schools and preparatory schools" just to make sure all the lowest common denominators are accounted for. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since the terminology is not standardized in real life - with some using “high school”, others using “secondary school”, and yet others using both interchangeably, (and a few using completely different terms such as “preparatory school”), I see no reason to impose a false standardization in our categories. The current cat name seems to be good. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The Lutheran churches of Finland, Denmark, and Norway call their clergy pastors, not priests
https://evl.fi/the-church/organisation/parishes
https://evl.fi/current-issues/women-ordained-for-thirty-years
https://kirken.no/nb-NO/church-of-norway/about/basics-and-statistics/
https://www.lutheranchurch.dk/who-we-are/who-works-in-the-church --Espoo (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, could you help with this as you created the categories in 2014? Presumably the Lutheran church of Sweden does use the word priest. TSventon (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:CFD, I will not oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @
- @Espoo:, I think the answer is to request a merge of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran clergy and so on, do you want me to do that? @Marcocapelle:, any corrections will be welcome. TSventon (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: wouldn't it make more sense to request a rename of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran pastors thus keeping them in the tree of Category:Danish priests? I'm not saying it should, it's an open question. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle:, I agree it's an open question. I understand priests as clergy who are called priests, so if clergy in Finland, Denmark, Norway aren't called priests they don't belong in the priests category. Category:Lutheran clergy by nationality has 26 national subcategories and only Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have Lutheran priests sub sub categories, so I think an upmerge would be consistent with the other 22 countries. TSventon (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: fair enough! Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and Category:Danish Lutheran priests, Finnish, Norwegian, etc. should be renamed Category:Danish Lutheran pastors etc. and removed from Category:Danish priests etc. so that this contains only RC and Anglican priests etc. (see Category:German priests). If one wants to make a category containing both Danish Roman Catholic priests and Danish Lutheran pastors (and the same for the other 2 countries), that should be called Category:Danish pastors and priests etc. --Espoo (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Espoo: did you read my post at 17:47, 29 March 2021 and 19:56, 29 March 2021? I think the answer is to request a merge of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran clergy and so on. Category:Lutheran clergy by nationality has 26 national subcategories and only Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have Lutheran priests sub sub categories, so I think that merger would be consistent with the other 22 countries. Category:Danish Christian clergy is the category that contains Danish pastors, priests and other clergy. TSventon (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon:, yes, that's what my previous yes referred to. My suggested changes try to address the problem of your changes resulting in having Category:Danish priests containing only RC priests in Category:Danish Christian clergy at the same level as other broader categories such as all Danish bishops and all Danish RC clergy and all Danish Protestant clergy. This is weird and asymmetric enough in Category:German Christian clergy, but in German it's not a semantic problem, just a weird way of making RC and Anglican priests look more important than Protestant pastors since only the former are presented at the same level as all German bishops. Concerning Danish clergy, there would be the additional problem that the Danish word præst(er) apparently does include (Protestant) pastors as well as (RC, Anglican, Orthodox, and other) priests, so we might get Danish editors demanding an English WP category including all Danish Christian pastors and priests or perhaps even all Danish pastors and priests, see https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Pr%C3%A6ster_fra_Danmark --Espoo (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo: This seems more complicated than I realised at first.
- WP:COMMONNAMEstates "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" so Wikipedia should follow reliable sources rather than necessarily following the church websites.
- WP:CATEGORYstates "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories" so priest categories exist to help readers navigate between articles, not because priests are more important than pastors or ministers. Different wikipedias are separate projects so they don't have to have the same category structures.
- I have checked the various church articles to see what terms they use
- Church of Denmark uses a mixture of pastor and priest
- Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland mostly uses priest
- Church of Norway mostly uses priest
- Church of Sweden uses priest
- @TSventon: What should determine our choice is specifically common English usage of English native speakers, not what the majority of non-native speakers write on different webpages of the website. The pages i sent at the beginning are the main English pages presenting the Finnish, Danish, and Norwegian Lutheran churches and they all use pastor, never priest. This is quite clearly an official decision based on consultation with a native speaker and increased awareness of what kind of theologically and religiously incorrect message the word priest would convey despite "priest" being used on other pages of the website (and widespread use by, for example, Finns in English). I don't know enough about the Swedish national church to be sure, but i assume they are more Anglican and less Lutheran in nature. In any case Swedes know English so well that the Church of Sweden's use of "priest" on their main English page https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/english is surely a conscious decision, which cannot be easily ignored, at least not without contacting them.
- I say this not because i think we should follow their official usage because it's official but because they are no doubt aware of what the majority of independent, reliable English-language sources say about their clergy. --Espoo (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- We should not be giving the impression that priests, pastors, ministers, vicars etc are not clergy or are above each other. Clergy is a wide terms which includes rabbis. But in some denominations not all clergy are priests. Is that the case for Lutherans? Certainly some of the articles categorised as Lutheran clergy say the subject was a priest, pastor or vicar. I'm inclined to think we should use pastor for all Lutherans unless there is clear evidence that usage is different in different countries, and we should be cautious about relying on translated material. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo: I think there are three possible ways forward
- a) request a rename of Category:Danish Lutheran priests to Category:Danish Lutheran pastors and remove from Category:Danish priests
- b) request a merge of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran clergy
- c) request a merge of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran clergy and a rename of Category:Danish Lutheran clergy to Category:Danish Lutheran pastors
- I support b and would be happy to propose it at ) 13:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: choice C would be confusing because then bishops would be a subcategory of pastors (though all bishops are of course also pastors). Choice A might cause future disagreement and CFDs from Danish/Swedish/Norwegian/Finnish speakers who don't want to accept that the English word priest isn't used like the word for priest in their language and don't hear how weird and wrong "priest" sounds to Lutheran and other Protestant English native speakers. B avoids the problem and produces the same category structure for these 4 countries as for the other 22 countries in the Category:Lutheran clergy by nationality, as you pointed out. So i agree with your proposal. --Espoo (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo:, @Marcocapelle:, @Rathfelder: discussion started at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#Category:Lutheran priests by nationality. TSventon (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Thanks, but please change the layout of the nomination so the four proposals are next to each other. Even better would be to remove the first proposal. You added that one as a new proposal to the ones we discussed here. It would probably be best to remove that one for now because it opens up a new can of worms. Instead it would be better to also add the merge proposal for Sweden, which would remove the unnecessary subcategory for Sweden from Category:Lutheran priests.
- Then it will become easier to delete this category because its 5 individual pages are all errors. These individual category entries should be removed or moved even if the result of the discussion should be the possible silly result of having only the Sweden subcategory left in that category:Lutheran priests. It seems in fact that category was created solely to drive home this dubious claim in its definition: "Some parts of Lutheranism call their clergy priests." This is arguably not correct English that is the result of interference caused by their native languages' use of a cognate for priest even after the Reformation, which the other 3 churches in the subcategory have apparently finally understood.
- The most blatant error in the individual pages in the category Lutheran priests is Martin Luther. He was a Roman Catholic priest who became a Protestant minister or pastor and specifically rejected the role of priest theologically, religiously, and personally, for example by marrying. Placing Luther in the dubious category Lutheran priests is simply factually wrong and in addition it would be almost as silly to put him in a correctly named category "Lutheran ministers (pastors)" as it would be to put Jesus in the category Christian priests. --Espoo (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo:, I think my proposal is reasonable, but I am waiting for comments from people who know more than I do. It is standard practice to group proposals in the way I have done, which allows reasons for support or opposition to be entered once after a list of proposals, rather than copied into each proposal. You can explain your views and support what you agree with, oppose what you disagree with and make further suggestions. TSventon (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: I didn't say your proposal is unreasonable, but it unnecessarily complicates the solution because it presents two different problems at the same time and doesn't address the underlying problem: that Wikipedia should follow normal English usage of native speakers, not use an unnecessary subcategory to emphasize the incorrect use of the English word priest by Swedes caused by their use of a Swedish cognate (that thus looks and sounds like the English word) to refer to Lutheran ministers (pastors), which is simply incorrect and misleading in English with "priest".
- That's why what you suggested here was so elegant, the merge of Category:X Lutheran priests into Category:X Lutheran clergy, especially if we applied it also to Sweden. It allows articles on Swedish Lutheran clergy to continue their Swedlish habit of calling them priests without claiming that's correct English by continuing to use a category with that Swedlish name, especially since that category is unnecessary.
- Your response above completely ignores the content of what i wrote about the category Lutheran priests. In addition, it's still unclear why the rationale for the two different groups of proposals is presented in between and whether responses to the proposal which was not discussed here should come in between or after the second group. --Espoo (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo:, I will try to briefly respond to your points. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which may or may not be the same as normal English usage of native speakers. Whether you think the word priest is used correctly or incorrectly is less relevant as it will depend on your point of view, and Wikipedia tries to take a neutral point of view.
- We didn't discuss merging Category:Swedish Lutheran priests into Category:Swedish Lutheran clergy, I currently oppose that as I think the SLP category helps readers navigate between articles, which is the purpose of a Wikipedia category.
- Again, I think Lutheran priests is useful if we keep Swedish Lutheran priests, but miscategorised articles like Martin Luther can be corrected. I have moved the rationale and responses should go at the bottom of the section as yours did. TSventon (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: I don't understand what kind of navigation is provided by the subcategory Swedish Lutheran priests that in your own opinion is not necessary in the case of the merge of Danish Lutheran priests into Danish Lutheran clergy.
- Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which may or may not be the same as normal English usage of native speakers in articles, but WP should follow native English usage in general terminology and especially categories. My opinion of whether the word priest is used correctly or incorrectly is very relevant since it is based on the most important reporters of English educated and general usage, dictionaries, which should play a much larger role in Wikipedia decisions on terminology, which are instead often unnecessarily long and amateur and include a lot of cherry picking. Modern English dictionaries report usage based on huge databases (with a bias towards the kind of language and sources used in encyclopedias but also report major popular usage when different) and no longer prescribe usage. Therefore the time and energy wasted in most long terminology discussions on WP could be saved by more awareness that modern dictionaries provide scientific descriptions, not prescriptive definitions; we should also follow usage in encyclopedias: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/holy+orders and and https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/ministry and https://www.lexico.com/definition/priest and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priest and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/priest --Espoo (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo: The church websites suggest that the Danish Church uses pastor whereas the Swedish Church uses priest. Hence a priest category would be more useful for for navigating between articles about Swedish clergy than Danish. Other views may emerge in the discussion.
- Wikipedia relies on consensus to reach decisions rather than what dictionaries say. I agree that the eventual decision will probably involve unnecessarily long and amateur discussions and include a lot of cherry picking. TSventon (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Updated. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: I don't understand. You didn't respond to my question about the apparently illogical argument about navigation.
- I also don't understand why you didn't respond to my argument that in terminology and spelling we can and should follow the usage descriptions in dictionaries and the usage in encyclopedias instead of doing OR in determining usage based on amateur searches of the reliable sources used for the content of articles. This would prevent cherry picking and unnecessarily long discussions.
- A good example are the many unnecessary fights about capitalization, where experts on a topic often demand capitalization of many technical terms (because it's often widespread in the field's literature) in clear violation of our MOS and often in violation of usage described in dictionaries. In the same way, it's completely irrelevant that the Swedish Church uses the word priest to refer to Lutheran clergy. We should of course mention that in articles on that church, but we should definitely not use that term elsewhere in the articles or in categories because it's clearly in violation of English usage. It would be as silly as using the German word Handy in articles about mobile phones in Germany or German manufacturers or in article titles. We can even have articles on this use of pseudo-English that use the word Handy and priest in their titles (eg Handy (German usage), Priest (Swedish usage)), but an article about Swedish Lutheran ministers should not use the word priest in its title or anywhere except in a section explaining this strange use by the Swedish Church. --Espoo (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo: I was responding to your popints and have edited my posts to clarify that. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo: The church websites suggest that the Danish Church uses pastor whereas the Swedish Church uses priest. Hence a priest category would be more useful for for navigating between articles about Swedish clergy than Danish. I still don't understand. What kind of navigation is provided by the subcategory Swedish Lutheran priests that in your own opinion is not necessary in the case of the merge of Danish Lutheran priests into Danish Lutheran clergy?
- Wikipedia relies on consensus to reach decisions rather than what dictionaries say. My whole point is that most of that consensus is in fact OR based either on personal opinions or on spelling conventions in the literature. Dictionaries are not respected enough in discussions on WP because even most educated people still think dictionaries define words and prescribe usage when they in fact do the opposite. They base their decisions on what is the most widespread and respected usage using extensive databases and scientific research. Use of the word priest to refer to Lutheran ministers is simply incorrect English used by non-native speakers in Sweden. We can report on that usage, but we can't follow it. --Espoo (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Espoo: I was responding to your popints and have edited my posts to clarify that. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t have an opinion on the “priest” vs “pastor”/“minister”/other terminology issue... but I do think that the “by nationality” sub-division is over-categorization. In the majority of cases, where these clergymen were/are from is not defining. What is defining is their religious role. Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've been reading this discussion here and there and that's exactly my sentiment about it. Sub-dividing the clergymen by nationality is over-categorization. What they are ultimately called is less relevant. My guess is that's it extremely variable by culture anyway. Whatever the "official" term for them in the Lutheran church is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Moving April Fools' joke nominations to new page?
I suggest that April Fools-related CfD discussions be split to another page, in the fashion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021. Thanks, 2001:569:7B92:5500:B02B:997B:1CF9:16F5 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
NPP-type category patrol?
Hi, is there any kind of new category patrolling system, WikiProject, etc. similar to
- BrownHairedGirl, could you answer the first question? I see you patrolled Category:2005 in Senegal recently. 2pou, I would say that many CfD nominations come from people who are interested in categories and some come from people who are interested in the subjects of the articles in the categories. TSventon (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon, AFAIK, there is no category-specific patrol system. Category:2005 in Senegal was just one which I came across by another route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, thanks, that may explain why so few categories are patrolled compared to other pages. TSventon (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon, AFAIK, there is no category-specific patrol system. Category:2005 in Senegal was just one which I came across by another route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Redirect-only categories
Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Category:Mike McGear songs, I suspect that there are precedents for deleting categories of songs which only contain redirects, but I can't remember them or think how to trace them. @Good Olfactory: Do you recall such, or have any lists that could help, please? – Fayenatic London 20:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london:: 11 hits for "only contains redirects": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22only+contains+redirects%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3ACategories+for+d&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&fulltext=1&ns0=1
- Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Of these 11, 1 was closed as merge, 1 was withdrawn after an article had been added, the other 9 were closed as delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle (talk · contribs) Here's some I nominated last year, didn't notice any objections, and none of them had more than 5 entries and all related to music in some way or other. All were deleted.
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_26#Category:XIX_Entertainment_singles
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_26#Category:AWAL_singles
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_28#Category:Slum_Village_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_11#Category:Cosmo's_Midnight_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_22#Category:Stella_Donnelly_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_27#Category:Lil'_O_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_21#Category:The_Grates_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14#Category:Eyes_Set_to_Kill_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_14#Category:Billy_Yates_(singer)_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_4#Category:Jerry_Kilgore_(singer)_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2#Category:Scotty_Emerick_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2#Category:Shelly_Fairchild_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_26#Category:Hippo_Campus_songs
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_24#Category:Fontaines_D.C._songs
--Richhoncho (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Amended --Richhoncho (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination anchors
Similarly to how {{Rfd2}} places anchors to the nominated redirects, it would make sense if {{Cfd2}} and similar added an anchor to the names of the nominated categories. This would make merging nominations, especially ones started using a tool like Twinkle, easier, as the {{Cfd}} template on the respective category page will continue to link to a nonexistent section by default. If no-one objects, I will place an edit request to edit the template-protected pages and implement the change myself at {{Cfs2}}, which is weirdly the only unprotected template of this sort. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Mononymous people
Please see Category:Mononymous people - Coagulans (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Coagulans, please can you explain why you have posted a link to the discussion above. TSventon (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian WikiOgres
As I previously said to the user who deleted it, I do not agree with the deletion of Wikipedian WikiOgres relying on an unclear and disputed 13 years old discussion. We currently have categories for 56 WikiBears, 93 WikiCats, 4 WikiDragons, 425 WikiFairies, thousands of WikiGnomes, 86 WikiGryphons, 30 WikiHobbits, 52 WikiJanitors, 24 Hyphen Luddites, 10 WikiTigers and 4 WikiSquirrels. There are more than 300 WikiOgres here, why can't them be treated equally? Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021 March 18#Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality was closed as relist
Could someone please implement the relisting. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging Good Olfactory, who closed the original discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I must say the same rationale applies to the other 'Bishops by nationality' categories merged in the same nom. Upmerging works perfectly well but these were downmerges (if you think 'Fooian bishops' is a parent of 'Bishops in Foo', which many editors seem to think, although I beg to differ) or sideways merges if you don't. In any case Oculi (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I must say the same rationale applies to the other 'Bishops by nationality' categories merged in the same nom. Upmerging works perfectly well but these were downmerges (if you think 'Fooian bishops' is a parent of 'Bishops in Foo', which many editors seem to think, although I beg to differ) or sideways merges if you don't. In any case
Category:Exclude in print nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:Hide in print
Hello I've nominated Category:Exclude in print for conversion along with other nonfunctional print handling systems at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:Hide in print. --Trialpears (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Bilateral relations names
I was looking at Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of the Congo and noticed that some treat the name as starting with an "R" and some with a "C". What is the correct convention here? Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
@ Talk:Slavery#Things to do discussed 8 already existing slavery related lists and 7 potential lists.
Is it possible to have some thing like Category:Lists related to slavery to cover all slavery related lists?
I am unaware of categorization related rules and where to put request. Please can some one help out in this respect.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Seems a very reasonable request. I have created Oculi (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Consensus to create categories
Looking at Category:Political prisoners, and ensuing fuss, I am reminded of an old proposal:
- 1. Category creation should not be available to just any editor. Either you are a qualified category creator, or you submit a category creation request.
Alternatively:
- 2. A CfD “no consensus” on category deletion should mean “delete”. Categories aren’t content, and bad categories are more problem than missing categories. Also, external perception, CfD closes as a decision to delete look heavy handed, and a close of “Delete, no consensus for this category to exist” would look better SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note to ) 18:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- For the number of categories I've brought to CfD, even those created by well-meaning editors, I'm willing to Support #1 at this time. However, it may just be that the system is broken. It's easy to create categories, and a nuisance to do anything about them once they've been created. DonIago (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose both per WP:5P3. Fundamentally we are an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and this suggestion goes against the foundational philosophy of the project as a whole and the way we extend faith in other volunteers as a community. Yes there are problems in category creation, and there are equally problems in article creation. However, the more we restrict editing and what active editors can do through lack of faith/trust, the more we discourage involvement and poison the whole spirit of the community; ultimately leading to the demise of wikipedia and the ability to maintain a healthy and thriving editor base and community space. 4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with that view is that category creation is not real editing. It’s not mainspace, it’s not content. While content can be added to the category page, that content must never be original. Categories serve content, and are very much a back end feature.
- Categorisation is linking. Any editor can add a wikilink per 5P3, and any editor can and would be able to categorise a page by adding a link to an existing category. Category creation, however, is not adding a link, but is creating an invitation for others to create links to it from articles.
- Enthusiastic new editors who get into making new categories make a lot of work at CfD.
- On your opposition to #2, that no consensus for the category means delete it, you didn’t support your oppose. #2 would bring categorisation in line with ordinary editing, where if an edit (eg to wikilink something) is challenged, then it has to go to the talk page for consensus support to make the edit stick. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think CFD’s policies on no consensus should mirror those at AFD and categories should be kept if there is not a clear majority to delete out of respect for the community and the participating editors. Neither of these policy changes are appealing to me, largely because I think CFD’s are often poorly advertised (to relevant WikiProjects) and many useful categories get deleted when there is very little participation. Better to err on the side of keep.4meter4 (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this is wrong, I think AfD is not a good model for CfD, and the standard approach that you like is the root of this CfD and DRV resulting in a bad outcome. It is my experience that CfD is overwhelmingly about cleaning up mess, mess that is the result of editors believing that they can create categories before understanding categorisation policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you said so earlier and don't have to repeat yourself. I personally don't think the system is broken to the point that it needs fixing. What's more concerning to me is the attempt to create another layer of editors with special powers/authority and the attempt to shift category deletion to meet a lower standard than clear consensus; an approach that is antithetical to wikipedia's core philosophies. I get that you are frustrated with the work load at CFD, but if the solution is to create a huge amount of red tape for our regular and experienced editors when they create useful and appropriate categories then to my mind its not a solution that saves time and work but increases the workload and time waist of our best workers. It's not a good solution. The current system is much preferable.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this is wrong, I think AfD is not a good model for CfD, and the standard approach that you like is the root of this CfD and DRV resulting in a bad outcome. It is my experience that CfD is overwhelmingly about cleaning up mess, mess that is the result of editors believing that they can create categories before understanding categorisation policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think CFD’s policies on no consensus should mirror those at AFD and categories should be kept if there is not a clear majority to delete out of respect for the community and the participating editors. Neither of these policy changes are appealing to me, largely because I think CFD’s are often poorly advertised (to relevant WikiProjects) and many useful categories get deleted when there is very little participation. Better to err on the side of keep.4meter4 (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support 1 or at least the weaker suggestion that new editors cannot create categories (much as they cannot create articles - creating an article is quite a difficult procedure, with many eyes trained on the process, sources needed, notability challenged, copyvios checked, COI investigated etc). Anyone can create a category without any supervision whatever. I don't support 2. 'No consensus' might well mean that there are proposals to keep but rename or to merge rather than delete. The 'political prisoners' one was not 'delete' at all - it was 'containerise', a different matter altogether. Oculi (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I’m not sure most people understood WP:Containerise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- As much as creating a new article is complicated, it is highly desired for keeping Wikipedia up to date with coverage of all notable topics. New categories are not similarly desired.
- A lot of volunteer time goes in to discussing existing categories, out of proportion to the amount of time that goes into creating these categories.
- WP:CFD is completely capable of being a forum for the creation of categories. I suggest that anyone with a track record of successful category proposals (eg 8 of the last 10 for a newcomer), or anyone with participation in 100 CfD discussions, should be allowed to unilaterally create categories, but others should have to propose their creation at CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:Political party colour templates - closed but nothing was done
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Category:Political party colour templates was closed August 19 but the categories haven't been moved. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @MJL, @Fayenatic london - can one of you take care of this? Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Fayenatic london: Please see request here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:C2E
I have just started:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_the_Sidon_District
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_the_Tyre_District
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_the_Jezzine_District
Ugh, then I see that I should not have added the "the"; I should have called them
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_Sidon_District
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_Tyre_District
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_Jezzine_District
Is there a quick way to change this? Or do I need to do it by hand? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Huldra, you can follow the process at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here and give C2E as the reason. That should be fairly quick. TSventon (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:TSventon, have done do, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Fixing broken CfD closure
Coming across this bot edit, it appears that there was an error in the closure of the CfD. Instead of merging the Thai people categories to Category:Thai people of Chinese descent, the bot instead merged to Category:Thai politicians of Chinese descent (contribs). Is there a relatively easy way to fix this semi-automatically? (I originally asked at User talk:Good Olfactory, who doesn't appear to be currently active.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- As this was (erroneously) listed as such as CfD, I would propose to list the categories as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, if there are no objections we can process them in two days.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that would work, since most of the pages were correctly placed under Category:Thai politicians of Chinese descent before the error. I guess I could manually compile a list from the bot contribs and go through them with AWB though (or have a bot do so). --Paul_012 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Proposed rework of "Fictional Characters with Multiple Personalities" category
It was suggested on the talk page for Gollum from The Lord of the Rings that the Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities category is malformed in its current state and needs to be reworked to only include accurate depictions of dissociative identity disorder, with the characters who do not meet the real-world diagnostic criteria -- for example, the Hulk or Sam Raimi's iteration of the Green Goblin -- should be removed using the precedent set by Gollum -- whose removal was predicated on a 2004 psychology paper saying that Gollum can't have dissociative identity disorder due to his split personalities being aware of one another and capable of interacting with each other. 2001:569:F875:3D00:510C:3AC8:DC1:83AD (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Mass media Categories
I'm wondering if anybody knows what happened with the discussion that I had started about several Mass media subcategories, which seems to have disappeared without a trace. I know that I posted a response to @
- It was a discussion at speedy as I recall, and these do indeed disappear without ceremony when the speedy is closed. My position is that all the subcats should be changed from 'media' to 'mass media' (moving down the tree and ignoring article names, which do not require the same consistency as category names). I did have a go at this some time ago; perhaps objections were raised. Oculi (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion at WP:CFDS became stale, and was archived at Category talk:Media cooperatives (which I consider to be good practice – thanks, Marcocapelle). – Fayenatic London10:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion at
Extinct Baronetcies
For reasons which I don’t need to bore anyone with, I am anxious for both these articles Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet and Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, to have categories which make it immediately clear that the baronetcy is extinct. This is currently not the case. Yesterday I added Category:Extinct baronetcies|Great Britain to their pages. This was instantly reverted. The following Asgill baronets explains clearly that the baronetcy became extinct in 1823, but how do I insert a category which links to that? Is there any solution to my problem? Anne (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably this could be done by splitting Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain into two categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry, is another possibility to delete Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain and replace it with Category:Extinct baronetcies Great Britain? That strikes me as s reasonable compromise. If I am supposed to be the one splitting categories, then that would be beyond me, I'm afraid. Anne (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oculi (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Arbil44, could you achieve your objective without changing the category structure? Introducing categories like Category:Baronets of extinct baronetcies in the Baronetage of Great Britain would be a major change as subcategories of Category:Baronets contain over 4,000 articles and should be consistent. It would only be justified if it clearly benefited navigation between all affected articles. TSventon (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- TSventon, if it is too difficult, then I will have to accept no change can be made. I do have very compelling reasons for wishing the 2 mentioned pages to link to extinct baronetcies, but it would be inappropriate to make this evident within the articles themselves. Rather like stating the obvious, except it isn't obvious to anyone knowing little about the 2nd baronet's story. In every case of a baronetcy becoming extinct, it should, I think, be made clear in the categories, but if it really is a bridge too far, then I will have to let this drop. Probably a stupid question, but is there a way that a category could link to this Asgill baronets - or could that, as is, be a category link? I knew nothing about that page, so never knew it existed until Cordless Larry gave me a link. Once there, it links straight back to the 2 articles under discussion. Anne (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies, I've obviously missed that this link Asgill baronets is in the 2nd baronet's article. Still wondering if it can be used as a category, though? Anne (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think you might be misunderstanding what categories are, Anne. Asgill baronets is an article, so it can't be used as a category. Articles sit in categories in much the same way that library books are organised into subject groups (except that articles here can belong to multiple categories). The links to categories along the bottom of a article page aren't the same as links to other articles in the text - they simply link to the index pages of the categories that the article is a member of. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you have seen my numerous apologies for having failed to understand, and for having failed to see that the matter is well covered in the articles. I've been having huge problems, elsewhere, and I was in over-drive; a situation in which mistakes arise, as now. I do hope this can all be archived now. I just cannot go on and on apologising over and over again. Anne (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing to apologise for, Anne. I was just explaining what I thought might be the source of confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you have seen my numerous apologies for having failed to understand, and for having failed to see that the matter is well covered in the articles. I've been having huge problems, elsewhere, and I was in over-drive; a situation in which mistakes arise, as now. I do hope this can all be archived now. I just cannot go on and on apologising over and over again. Anne (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think you might be misunderstanding what categories are, Anne. Asgill baronets is an article, so it can't be used as a category. Articles sit in categories in much the same way that library books are organised into subject groups (except that articles here can belong to multiple categories). The links to categories along the bottom of a article page aren't the same as links to other articles in the text - they simply link to the index pages of the categories that the article is a member of. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies, I've obviously missed that this link Asgill baronets is in the 2nd baronet's article. Still wondering if it can be used as a category, though? Anne (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- TSventon, if it is too difficult, then I will have to accept no change can be made. I do have very compelling reasons for wishing the 2 mentioned pages to link to extinct baronetcies, but it would be inappropriate to make this evident within the articles themselves. Rather like stating the obvious, except it isn't obvious to anyone knowing little about the 2nd baronet's story. In every case of a baronetcy becoming extinct, it should, I think, be made clear in the categories, but if it really is a bridge too far, then I will have to let this drop. Probably a stupid question, but is there a way that a category could link to this Asgill baronets - or could that, as is, be a category link? I knew nothing about that page, so never knew it existed until Cordless Larry gave me a link. Once there, it links straight back to the 2 articles under discussion. Anne (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Arbil44, could you achieve your objective without changing the category structure? Introducing categories like Category:Baronets of extinct baronetcies in the Baronetage of Great Britain would be a major change as subcategories of Category:Baronets contain over 4,000 articles and should be consistent. It would only be justified if it clearly benefited navigation between all affected articles. TSventon (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry, is another possibility to delete Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain and replace it with Category:Extinct baronetcies Great Britain? That strikes me as s reasonable compromise. If I am supposed to be the one splitting categories, then that would be beyond me, I'm afraid. Anne (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I have trouble imagining a scenario where it needs to be made clear in the article of a long-dead baronet, through categories, that their baronetcy is extinct; this is not a defining characteristic of the person, but of the baronetcy itself, and is already found because the baronetcy is in
- I apologise once more. I am caught up in an off-line drama over this and leapt at the first thought coming to my mind to do something, totally missing what is already there. What more can I do but apologise? Anne (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you were in your last post "still wondering" about it, so I replied... Fram (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you were in your last post "still wondering" about it, so I replied...
Are Complex categories less accurate lists?
I am trying to work out whether it is worth writing some reports on categories. I think many are inaccurate reports as not all articles are assigned. So
- From your experience, are more complex categories less likely to be complete OR just have one entry?
- Are they less likely to be viewed except by Bots/Crawlers?
And is the information in info boxes more likely to be accurate than the category? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wakelamp could you give a couple of examples of the kind of reports you are considering? Do you mean intersect categories like Category:Chemists as head of government? TSventon (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- BETTER VERSION :=) I was after intersects. If we had a search bar in category would it be useful and if it was smart would it get rid of many categories and would it be useful? By smart I mean that it could cope with things like noun/verb differences (France/French), century mapped to birth and death dates, 19th and 19 th century
Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Gender - sex confusion in category titles
I'm not sure if this is the correct venue as I seem to have wandered into a meander of redirects to get here....
I've noticed quite a few recent category moves to correct erroneous use of sex instead of gender, such as "Female Fooian writers" being moved to "Women Fooian writers". This however seems to be a fairly random process which I think could be streamlined and done more systematically by including "incorrect categorization by sex instead of gender" as an explicit speedy criterion and even doing it (semi-)automatically by bot or script. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've been looking unsuccessfully (out of curiosity, not opposition) for some discussion of this bulk change. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: --Northernhenge (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aside from my bot completing the moves, I am not involved. The moves are likely being made under C2C like the singers at WP:CFDS to see the requests. Knifegames seems to making requests for the music-related ones and may be able to provide more insight. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aside from my bot completing the moves, I am not involved. The moves are likely being made under C2C like the singers at
- Hi Roger (Dodger67) & Northernhenge! Yes, I figured there must be a way to streamline that work, but unfortunately *I* don't know how to do it, ha; I decided I'd only tackle the music-related categories, & for now that's all still on my user page here, broken down into:
- "women in music cats": This is all the categories I had renamed (I think 474), with links to (uneventful) CfRs for the first two batches (in July and August)––I kept the big list so I could track my own cleanup progress (correcting category explanations, classifications, etc.), removing redlinks as I went, & I think that's all (at last!) finished now.
- "markup / remainders": I've only found 5 more "female" categories in music, & those are listed there because I wasn't entirely sure how to handle them; for example, a couple people brought up being comfortable with the moves because the categories were unlikely to include children, so I don't want to switch over something like Category:Fictional female musicians without first checking to see if they're all "women"––but (to be frank!) I also don't care enough to prioritize that work right now…
- "using "women" as a modifier": One user had questions about grammar, accuracy, etc., & I gave thorough explanations in response to their comments, both of which are copy/pasted there; in establishing precedent, that sub-subsection includes a full breakdown of the "women/female x"-formulated subcats under Women by occupation.
- It would be amazing to have an explicit speedy criterion making it easier for others to tackle that work! But I can't let myself resume doing it, as my drive to *complete* takes over a bit too much... Knifegames (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the explanation you gave on that page:
that "women" is more accurate (see
Sex and gender distinction) and because it's the only way to ensure consistency: "women" refers to both cisgender and transgender women, so when "female" is used to describe that group, the word is just being used colloquially to mean "women". I'm not convinced at all by this - I don't believe there's any consensus view that transgender women are women, but they're not female. And speaking of accuracy, an article about a 6-year-old singer would be much more at home in a category called "Female singers" than "Women singers". My bigger question, though, is the same one Northernhenge has, about the process by which this mass change occurred. Was there a discussion about it, or did you just decide by yourself to make this change? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)- WP:EGRS - we are required to accept the self-identification of the subject's gender, it's not subject to consensus. The point of this discussion is to streamline the change and apply it more consistently. No one else has so far raised any objection to it. It is in fact by definition wrong to use "female/male" instead of "woman/man" for people except when discussing them in biological terms. That is literally the difference between sex and gender. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It is in fact by definition wrong to use "female/male" instead of "woman/man" for people except when discussing them in biological terms.
This may be your opinion or normative view, but I think it finds little support in actual usage (or in lexicographic authorities, for that matter). The OED entry for female includes senses like "Of or relating to a woman or girl.", "Engaged in or exercised by women; done by women.", "Of a quality, attribute, etc.: peculiar to or characteristic of a woman or women." etc. These senses are plainly still in current use. e.g. This BBC article talks about a reality show having a "predominantly young and female audience particularly valuable to advertisers" - there's no salient biological context here, they're just saying its viewership includes lots of young women. Like many words, female has multiple definitions. The relevant definition at any given juncture will depend on context. It's like asking whether a tomato is a fruit, or whether a strawberry is a berry. There is no one universal "correct" answer - it depends on whether we're speaking in a biological context, a culinary context, an agricultural context, etc. Colin M (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Korny O'Near! I think Roger (Dodger67) has already addressed your first note, but for the record we're in complete agreement that transgender women are not female. Regarding accuracy, I think the more relevant category for a 6-year-old is "child", as in Category:Child singers by nationality. I haven't known reliable sources fo confirm details about a 6-year-old's sex, and as I said above, I've held off on renaming some categories that I think include children; I'll be sure to keep articles about girls and women apart.
- Regarding "the process by which this mass change occurred", apologies that my above comment might've been too long for the relevant links to be clear! The first two batches went through traditional CfRs in July and August.
- Let me know if you have any more questions! // Knifegames (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Roger (Dodger67) - thank you for your response, though I confess I didn't really understand it. Should a category like Category:Male models be renamed to "Man models", since the former is "by definition wrong"?
- Knifegames - thank you for those links, although of course those are discussions about very particular renames ("African-American female composers" and "American female classical composers"), not discussions about a more general renaming. The last general discussion about changing "female" to "woman" in category names might have been this one in 2013, where the result was "no consensus; in general, users seem open to some case-by-case fixes." And interestingly, in both of those recent composer-related discussions, some people's rationale for supporting the rename was that children are unlikely to be composers, so that the issue with the word "women" not including girls would be moot. Of course, that's not the case with a "singer" category. Just to be clear, though, was this recent mass change of "female" to "women" in category names done without any discussion? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the explanation you gave on that page:
Comment - I don't have a dog in the category naming dispute at issue here, but did want to point out two principles that apply generally: (1) except where recent RS take a different approach (e.g., awards given pre-transition), WP uses the latest reliably sourced self-ID of BLP subjects to categorize them, and never any other principle of classification (e.g., sex assigned at birth); and (2) "women" and "female" are both, in the context of category names, labels for gender rather than sex (again with limited exceptions such as "women's reproductive health"). That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Knifegames: any further comment on this? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to voice my strong opposition to this change, and I completely agree with Colin M that using the word "female" to refer to anything belonging to or relating to women in general is completely normal. I fail to see how anyone could be confused by someone like Laura Jane Grace, as an example, being referred to as a "female guitarist". That is an accurate description. Words like "female" and "male" simply do not, in common parlance, always refer to biology, and insisting that they do is both annoyingly prescriptivist and verging on transphobic. I'd also say that the fact that far more changes seem to have been made on this front to category titles using the word "female" rather than those using the word "male" seems like a wild double standard. Perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourselves with the concepts of transmisogyny and cissexism. Gravelove (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:Alumni by educational institution
RandomCanadian has proposed deletion of Category:Alumni by educational institution and its thousands of subcategories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#Category:Alumni by educational institution. I would like to request assistance with tagging all the subcategories with {{subst:Cfd|CfD section name}} as suggested by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to. Any further advice would also be welcome. TSventon (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Now closed as ) 22:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Clarification for certain fundamental biographical points to clarify the guidelines to make clear that these thousands of categories proposed for deletion are indeed permissible. BD2412 T 05:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Administrative vs. Content Categories
Looking for someone more knowledgeable than I to address the following questions.
I was previously using
The category in question is now deleted, but I am pursuing this because I would like to reinstate it.
The discussion (which contains greater detail) can be found here.
KaerbaqianRen[ talk ] 05:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a problem with something like this in principle, but I would think about whether there's a more lightweight way to accomplish whatever you're trying to use that category for. For example, if you're keeping all your drafts under the prefix
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rusyns/Drafts/, you can get a list of them all at Special:PrefixIndex (example). You can also programmatically output a list of such pages using the template{{PrefixIndex}}. Colin M (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
WP Gender studies
Please, check the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#WP Gender studies. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 7#WP Gender studies. —andrybak (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposed category of American activists against same-sex marriage
Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Input on potential Category:American same-sex marriage opponents or similar, any input is appreciated. Would like to have some sort of rough consensus that such a category is workable before creating it. Apologies for not listing it here originally! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Archived at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 18#Input on potential Category:American same-sex marriage opponents or similar. —andrybak (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Mass renaming requests
Fayenatic, Dicklyon, other watchers, I forget how this has been dealt with previously, but could large batches of uncontroversial requests be collapsed or given their own section to make it easier to navigate the other requests? TSventon (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they can be collapsed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [talk] 00:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Categories pertaining to former administrative divisions
I am facing this problem with Ukrainian categories, because Ukraine had an administrative reform in 2020. I was recently told that there are similar problems for Latvia, which had a similar reform last year. Let me pick up an example of Ukraine and explain what the problem is. The reform reduced the number of raions - the second-level administrative units - so that some raions were merged in the bigger raions (and some of these bigger raions were newly created, and some were existing earlier but were significantly expanded as a result of the reform). Some raions were actually split as a result of the reform - for example, Kitsman Raion was split between Vyzhnytsia Raion and Chernivtsi Raion, Chernivtsi Oblast. Now, we have at least two problems.
- We have categories such as Category:People from Kitsman Raion. Before 2020, this category was filled by the articles on people who were born in the area which in 2020 was Kitsman Raion, but not necessarily at the time it was Kitsman Raion - some were born for example when the area belonged to Romania, and the raion did not exist. I personally find it poor practice, but this is not the point. The point is what do we do with the category, if the raion does not exist anymore. Should we search by hand in which village the person was born, determine where the village is currently located, and then move it to the category of the raion it is located now? It is extremely tedious but in principle doable if the village currently exists under the same name. If it was abolished or renamed we may not have information on its location. And, imagine, we have done all this work - should I just delete the categories after marking them as empty for seven days, because the idea is they become empty?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is no category Category:Populated places in Kitsman Raion, but there is for example Category:Populated places in Terebovlia Raion. What do we do with this one? Move articles to other categories (which can be done via speedy for the raions which were merged into other raions but needs to be done manually for the raions which were split)? Or do we keep also historical categories? But then for example the borders of Vyzhnytsia Raion were significantly changed in 2020, and possibly also in the 1960s when there was another reform, and possibly sometime in between. At which time point do we keep these historical categories?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- This part is easy: we do not populate categories for former divisions with current populated places. Only the current divisions are considered WP:DEFINING. Therefore the old category needs to be split between the new raions.
- But we do keep categories with sufficient content about history, and we keep at least some "People from" categories – see e.g. Category:Katanga Province, which was kept but purged following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 4#Former subdivisions in D. R. Congo. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- This part is easy: we do not populate categories for former divisions with current populated places. Only the current divisions are considered
- The logic of historical categories is that they refer to subdivisions of states which no longer exist, such as Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the German Empire and so on. Ukraine, for instance, has categories for the governorates and uyezds of the Russian Empire, for the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and for the Kingdom of Hungary. In theory, you could treat the Ukrainian SSR in the same way, as it qualifies as a different state than independent Ukraine. The borders of the modern Ukrainian oblasts seem to be the same as those of Soviet Ukraine. My impression is that most raion borders hadn't changed much until recently, but the recent administrative reform of course changes the situation. In any case, everybody needs to be categorized at least according to present-day administrative units, because they help the reader of the article to situate the person in simple geographical terms. The historical categories are interesting and relevant in their own way, but they obviously are only complementary to present-day categories and can't be used as an alternative to them, except in cases where only the historical category is known. You could in theory use Soviet Ukrainian raions for categorizing people born in Soviet Ukraine, but even then you would have to use the present-day administrative borders as well for categorizing the same persons, as everybody has to be categorized at least according to them. You mentioned cases when it would be difficult to classify people according to the new second-level subdivisions. My advice would be to try to classify everybody according to them and to use the oblast-level classification for those you can't place in the new second-level categories. Montenois (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Categorization is supposed to capture defining qualities (
- And “sometimes by notable residence.” See . 22:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- So I think people–place categories ought to represent the set of places associated with people by sources, regardless of period or geographical details, and not necessarily all currently existing places. It’s about what sources associate them with, not the exact GPS coordinates and boundaries according to Google Maps. (Of course, sources might define a person variously, so the set of categories might seem contradictory.) —Michael Z. 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Recategorizing articles after speedily renaming the category
If a category is renamed using speedily renaming, are the articles in that category automatically recategorized to the new category name? I know there a bots that will do this for soft redirect categories, but will that happen automatically for renaming? Needless to say I don't want to ask to rename a category and then have to edit all the articles in that category. Coastside (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Coastside yes, once a category renaming is approved by an admin, a bot moves the category page and recategorises the articles and subcategories in the category. TSventon (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- TSventon, where can I locate the status of the request for speedy renaming of already completed requests. I seem to can't find in this article page. --Thaejas (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thaejas the process is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Do you have an example in mind? Requests are not archived so the easiest way to check an old request is to look at the history of the category which was nominated. For example, click on the redlink Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district and you will see a message 03:18, 25 January 2021 JJMC89 bot III talk contribs moved page Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district to Category:Cities and towns in Jajpur district without leaving a redirect (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district). That was an example of a full discussion which used speedy criteria. TSventon (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- TSventon, Thanks. I was searching for the speedy renaming of the category Category:Populated places in Madya Pradesh that I had requested, but couldn't find the log in this category page. I feel a log containing the speedy renaming should be existing for reference. --Thaejas (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thaejas again, the redlink tells you where the category was moved to. Fayenatic has a log of speedy renames been suggested before and is it a good idea? TSventon (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Any logged-in user can see where the category was moved to; just click on the red link, and you should see
- 06:49, 11 January 2022 talk · contribs) moved page Category:Populated places in Madya Pradesh to Category:Populated places in Madhya Pradesh without leaving a redirect (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy)
- 06:49, 11 January 2022
- If I click the link when not logged in, I see "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name", and at the end of that message, "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log" – but that particular deletion log link shows no information if not logged in, because the history was stored in the move log rather than the deletion log. The user could still get to the info by changing the drop-down from "Deletion log" to "All public logs" and then clicking the "Show" button, but that's not very obvious.
- So, there is a system log – do stay logged in for easier access to it! However, there is not a log page like there is for full CFD discussions, where you could quickly trace the rationale by using "what links here".
- Such a log has indeed been suggested before. Searching the archive (top of this page) for Speedy Log, I found Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_15#Documenting_discussion_outcomes, where there was some support in 2013 for logging, and two suggestions for where to do it. Would it be more use to:
- always add {{Old CfD}} on the category talk page after any move/merge by a CFD bot; or
- list all speedy renames & merges on a new permanent log page?
- Since that discussion, at least keep and no consensus outcomes are being recorded on the talk page by the bot. @JJMC89: would either or both of the above options be feasible to be added to the functions of user:JJMC89 bot III? – Fayenatic London 14:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Any logged-in user can see where the category was moved to; just click on the red link, and you should see
- Thaejas again, the redlink tells you where the category was moved to. Fayenatic has a log of speedy renames been suggested before and is it a good idea? TSventon (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- TSventon, Thanks. I was searching for the speedy renaming of the category Category:Populated places in Madya Pradesh that I had requested, but couldn't find the log in this category page. I feel a log containing the speedy renaming should be existing for reference. --Thaejas (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thaejas the process is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Do you have an example in mind? Requests are not archived so the easiest way to check an old request is to look at the history of the category which was nominated. For example, click on the redlink Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district and you will see a message 03:18, 25 January 2021 JJMC89 bot III talk contribs moved page Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district to Category:Cities and towns in Jajpur district without leaving a redirect (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Category:Cities and towns in Jajapur district). That was an example of a full discussion which used speedy criteria. TSventon (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- TSventon, where can I locate the status of the request for speedy renaming of already completed requests. I seem to can't find in this article page. --Thaejas (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Renaming all shinto cults from "faith" to "cult
I want to rename all categories in this category
Changes to CFD templates re indenting
Regular participants at CFD may be missing the way that nominations, including rationales, used to be indented using colons. Apparently that was unhelpful for accessibility, see Template talk:Cfd2#Remove leading colons. I have now amended the CFD templates to include {{Block indent}}, as will be seen when editing new discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Changes were reverted to status quo ante on 23 January. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Speedy rename" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Speedy rename and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Wikipedia:Speedy rename until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Resonant trans-Neptunian objects
I think those categories are misnamed.
- "Category:1:3 resonance" should be "category:1:3 resonance with Neptune"
- "Category:1:4 resonance" should be "category:1:4 resonance with Neptune"
- "Category:1:6 resonance" should be "category:1:6 resonance with Neptune"
- "Category:1:9 resonance" should be "category:1:9 resonance with Neptune"
etc.
There are many other resonances, those categories only apply to resonance with Neptune.
--Io Herodotus (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:CFD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
No information about how to request a simple G7 deletion request?
I must be missing something obvious but I can't see how to nominate for speedy deletion two categories that I have just created (due to a misunderstanding of the effect of
- ) 19:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really think that I would waste a second of anyone's time by asking here if the answer were on that page? But let's RTFM again:
Determine which speedy criterion applies
Got that one: G7.Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
How is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename? Ok, let's assume that this instruction doesn't apply and ignore it.List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page
So I go to "Current requests" where I findAdd requests for speedy renaming and merging here
. Again, how is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename?
- So do I ignore all instructions and just add it to the same list as speedy renames? --talk) 23:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really think that I would waste a second of anyone's time by asking here if the answer were on that page? But let's RTFM again:
- @WP:CFDS only provides possibilities for renaming and merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. So I have already been informed. My point still stands: talk) 20:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. So I have already been informed. My point still stands:
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
ANSI and redir cat names?
Some time ago the "ANSI standards" cat was speedied to "American National Standards Institute standards", a name which is used by precisely zero people on the planet earth. Unfortunately, the speedy page has no search function, so I cannot find the discussion of why this occurred.
In any event, to avoid having everyone solve this problem the hard way (a deletion warning on page create), is it reasonable to have a redir for this cat? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Probably because ) 12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- But that is not what the standards are called. Even ANSI doesn't call them that. The standards are called "ANSI standard X". Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- But as a descriptive group they are the "American National Standards Institute standards". Looking at the site, almost anytime the name of the organization is used, their full name is used first. Seems the category is in the correct location. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure? about that? Or to save time, one can simply examine the list here, where ANSI and WWW are the only two of many dozens of standards that are spelled out. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- The original rename request can be found here, and was proposed by Armbrust * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can I speedy it back? Or do I have to start a discussion? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The original rename request can be found here, and was proposed by Armbrust * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure? about that? Or to save time, one can simply examine the list here, where ANSI and WWW are the only two of many dozens of standards that are spelled out. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- But as a descriptive group they are the "American National Standards Institute standards". Looking at the site, almost anytime the name of the organization is used, their full name is used first. Seems the category is in the correct location. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- But that is not what the standards are called. Even ANSI doesn't call them that. The standards are called "ANSI standard X". Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The question is how to make a redir. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please try using {{Category redirect}} to create a soft redirect. - Eureka Lott 20:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Still need to fix the original though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Admin backlog
Do we still need the message on top "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators."? I think the table with number of open discussions per month should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Plurals under C2A
Under C2A, the sentence "This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" is awkward. The word "such" seems out of place, and "when the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" seems badly phrased. We know what the distinction is. The issue arises when it might be debatable which of those a particular category is. I propose replacing the sentence with "This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category". Largoplazo (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Closing to "rename" a WP:BADNAC???
Just checking ... since me, a non-admin, cannot edit
- ...Seriously, imma bout to start a discussion requesting the protection of ) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: if you have page move rights you do not need Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to close a discussion as rename. Category pages are moved the same way as articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @) 17:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Template
User:LaundryPizza03 reverted my bold edit and while it is not a big deal to me I will explain the two underlying reasons anyway:
- The template is really big (it takes the whole screen on my mobile) and it is annoying you have to scroll a lot before getting to even the most basic information what the page is about.
- The table below the template already provides the most important links of the template and it is a more natural order to show the most important links in full first and a link to anything else thereafter. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocappelle: You will have to discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, since this change would logically affect all the XfD pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Malformed speedy CfR request?
- Yes. I'm a little new to this. My initial goal was to change the meaning of the category. I'm explaining further within that article. MegaSmike46 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Article and template that could be a category (gardens)
List of garden features and the entirely nonhierarchical template at the bottom of it both look like they might be better as categories. Eyecatchers might also benefit. Of course, subcats in the template and additional information or index images in the list article would also be good, but at the moment both are flat category-like lists. I'm really not fashed about what structure is used, whatever works for the person doing it. I'm posting this here in hopes someone might have a clever (perhaps semi-automated) way to do this sort of thing, as I don't think I'll be doing it. HLHJ (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- ) 09:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Backlog reduction
{{admin backlog}} I've noticed that CFD tends to move way slower than the other CFD proposals, and items often fail to get relisted. Take for instance this nomination. It was relisted on the 18th and has clearly gone stale, as no one else has even looked at it in 15 days. This one has been open since the 15th and should clearly be closed as there is no opposition. It seems like every time I file a CFD, it tends to progress far slower than any other XFD. Does anyone know why they tend to run slower, and what could be done to speed them up? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: I fully share your concern and unfortunately I do not have a remedy. Since a few weeks the situation has stabilized at around 150 discussions eligible for closing, which I am relatively happy with. In the medium long term it goes with ups and downs between 50 to (once) close to 300. Simple fact is that not enough editors are interested in closing CfD discussions, and I have no idea how we can change that. Many thanks to editors who do close lots of these discussions such as User:Fayenatic london and User:Qwerfjkl. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some editors and admins find the guidance at WP:CFDAI daunting, and therefore steer clear of CFD. I must take some responsibility for that, having expanded it over the years, intending it to be useful for reference. User:Pppery therefore took the initiative earlier this year to insert a "Simple version" at the top. However, the XFDcloser tool, which he recommended there, is only partly useful for CFDs (see comments here). I must have another go at simplifying that page. – Fayenatic London08:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Context for that "Simple version" is Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#NPOV disputes categories where Liz said
I think there needs to be a "Dummies Guide" to closing CfD discussions because I've read over the instructions several times over the past few years and found them intimidating enough that I never started doing closings
, which I was trying to comply with. I note that she later promised thatIt's on [her] "To Do" list to try to take on some more simple closures next month
and never followed through (next month
refers to February) Poorly-written instructions aside, CfD closing is necessarily more complicated that most other types of discussion closure because implementing the result isn't just making one edit or admin action. TfD, the only other forum with that property, is really only staying above water because most nominations are entirely uncontroversial. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Context for that "Simple version" is Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#NPOV disputes categories where Liz said
- Some editors and admins find the guidance at
- I don't know about your "To do" lists but I have some items on mine for several years that I haven't gotten to yet! I see my words as an aspiration, not a promise. And when the project is full of other, more straight-forward work that can keep me very, very busy, taking on an area of the project that I don't understand as well is, well, it is not appealing. But I see from this discussion that new instructions have been attempted and I have also seen some very good closures by non-admins recently so I should probably do my part as well and try to digest the "simpler" instructions. Note: That, too, is an aspiration and hope, not a "promise"! Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @User:Marcocapelle/sandbox2. I haven't really removed a lot of text, but primarily removed/simplified a lot of bulleting, because I think the amount and depth of bullets on the current page is the most intimidating bit of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have also left a notification at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Attempt to make instructions for closing CfD discussions better readable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- ) 20:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:CFD/Wand its subpages are fully protected is to prevent vandalism.
- CFDW issues instructions to a powerful bot, by which anyone bent on mischief could wreak widespread havoc on the category system. This vulnerability was successfully exploited back in June 2007, as documented at WT:Categories for discussion/Working/Archive 1#Time to protect this page, after which I protected the page.
- This history is publicly summarised in CFDW's logs at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3ACategories+for+discussion%2FWorking and I am disappointed that an editor would propose lowering the protection on any page without checking the history.
- It seems to me that the vulnerability is greater now than it was then, because 15 years later there are a lot more categories and many fewer admins watching CFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
- @ 21:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've closed most of the discussions, so the backlog is fairly low (for now). ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization § RfC: should templates and template categories roll up into related content categories. —andrybak (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
RFC
Category:Books by publisher has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Posting notice here for open, undiscussed RfC —Wingedserif (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Mass nomination needed
At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_18#Category:Basketball_players_at_the_2022_NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Final_Four user:Namiba nominated from 2022 back to 2006, but IIUC Category:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year and the rest of its sub-cats should also now be nominated for deletion, and so should Category:NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: as you have been renaming a sibling set, you might possibly be willing! – Fayenatic London 11:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm already overly busy finishing up some case fixes. It would seem OK for an admin to see the consensus there and go ahead and delete the rest, no? Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this case would fit any criteria for speedy deletion, nor does it justify using 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Done Now listed at 15:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm already overly busy finishing up some case fixes. It would seem OK for an admin to see the consensus there and go ahead and delete the rest, no? Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
C2A and pluralization.
Does C2A cover renamings due to incorrect pluralization? For example, if there was a category "Attorney Generals of Missouri" which *should* be "Attorneys General of Missouri" (the one that I've found is actually for an Inspector General)Naraht (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Brief break
@Marcocapelle, @Fayenatic london, I won't be on Wikipedia for a few days, from Friday to Sunday or Monday, so I won't be able to close CfDs for the next few days. Just a heads up. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- If it is for vacation, enjoy the days! Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I'm very glad you are still here most of the time. Best wishes! – Fayenatic London 22:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, @Marcocapelle, I'm back a lot earlier than I expected, due to some unfortunate circumstances. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Take care, and thanks for the update. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, @Marcocapelle, I'm back a lot earlier than I expected, due to some unfortunate circumstances. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I'm very glad you are still here most of the time. Best wishes! – Fayenatic London 22:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
shipbuilding
Category:Shipbuilding companies of the United States
Category:Shipyards of the United States
Category:Shipyards in California
Category:Shipbuilding companies of California
the left hand categorically does not know what the right hand does?
Then there is another problem. Sorting by state is not best. Portland and Vancouver shipyards on the Columbia and Willamette River are in spitting distance, but the Vancouver yards would end up in the same category as yards in Seattle.
Same for certain Shipyards in New York Harbor that get mixed together with yards on the Delaware River, because the state of New Jersey touches both.
Nowakki (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Nowakki: Just saw this. I've created several ship categories and I think the intent is for "shipyards" to be one location and "shipbuilding companies" to be for larger companies that own multiple shipyards. This isn't totally satisfactory though since many shipyards started as separate companies that then became part of bigger companies so maybe there's a better way to do that. (The state border issue you mentioned is solved in other topic areas with metro area cats which might work here.) Hope those thoughts help! - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- i think there are zero intelligent editors working on the topic of shipbuilding at this time. i will probably have to wait a year or two before somebody comes around that cares about this stuff enough to dedicate some brain activity to it. kind of scary how easy it is to become a wiki expert on something. 6 months ago i knew nothing about any of this. i wonder how not a single real expert deems it fruitful to add to wikipedia on this topic. Nowakki (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
consensus?
i don't see a consensus there. also somebody was "not thrilled" by the word major. also, there was not even a reply to arguments i made.
nothing happened and somebody just renamed it anyway? is this how it works?
i am not thrilled by the word "major" not being included. that's the whole point of the category. Nowakki (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: * Pppery * it has begun... 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Nowakki, all three other contributers in the discussion opposed "major", so there was definite concensus against that. Marcocapelle suggested deletion but there was no consensus for that, so it was renamed instead, to help with the issues mentioned by the nom. The other !votes were implicitly agains your comment, especially the need for "major", without explicitly replying to you (at least, that's my view). — Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- well they are wrong. the category makes it explicit that only certain types of warships are included. this is now not a category of "warships".
- not one of them put into words their feelings about the word "major".
- a few guys in a room, and we take count on their vague intuitions.
- they all agreed to keep the list of ship types in place (or maybe they were not aware of the text).
- is it the word "major", or is it the existence of an adjective in general?
- maybe we can finish this discussion here. Nowakki (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Nowakki, re
not one of them put into words their feelings about the word "major"
, how else do you interpretcertainly remove "major" from the category name
. You may personally believe the result should have been otherwise, but consensus (from experienced CfD participants) was against you. They clearly articulated their reasoning, so it was notvague intuitions
. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC) - Pinging other participants @Pichpich, @Peterkingiron. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Nowakki, re
- "Major" violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, I could have been clearer about that in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- What defines a “major” warship? Is that a term commonly used to categorize warships in the real world, or just something you decided to use here on Wikipedia? If not used outside WP, are there alternative terms that are used? Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would have supported deleting the category (and still do). Other than the US emergency shipyards potential members of the category built ships prior to and after WW2. I don't see the need for a category which built "major" or "tier 1" warships during that period Lyndaship (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Lyndaship: that's what categories are for. is there a need for it? no.
- a shipyard that existed prior to WW2 can still be in the category of yards that produced during world war 2.
- Donald Trump was a person before he assumed any of the roles that put him in the myriads of categories he is in.
- A category is a group of things that share a common property. On wikipedia, the category also has to make sense and should not be arbitrary.
- Which this category is not. Nowakki (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, I think this was a good close - User:Qwerfjkl's answer above to the request on this page for clarification of the close (this thread), was a fair one. They pretty clearly closed based upon the discussion at hand and the relevant policies and guidelines. As this is a "Non-admin close", if you need an admin endorsement of the close (do we even do that anymore? lol) I'm fine with endorsing this close. A No consensus result does not preclude further discussion. If you or anyone else has issues with the current name, please feel free propose something else in discussion, especially if you can find references to support such. I hope this helps. - jc37 03:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Linguists from Foo
I was a bit surprised that the Linguists from Foo categories, recently CFDS'ed by
- Yeah I had the same thought, now it’s ambiguous if it’s linguists show or on language X or who have nationality X. Umimmak (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Update: Renaming already reversed by Fayenatic london, now under
) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)- Right – I had not noticed this discussion, but had raised the precedent with Oculi at Category talk:Linguists by nationality. Anyway, back to CFDS now. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Bot disaster for Category:English-language education
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:English-language education
Somehow today's closing was misinterpreted.
The kept Category:English-language education was renamed to Category:Education by language.
Please revert that mistaken renaming, and then instead rename Category:Language education by language to Category:Education by language as written.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Help with complicated nomination
I will potentially need help at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 16#Category:Non-fiction with respect to listing/tagging the plethora of appropriate subcats of Category:Non-fiction. Οἶδα (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Οἶδα: if the CFD is carried, user:DannyS712 may be willing to assist with the follow-up using his bot. He has offered to help with such tasks in the past, but I'm not sure whether that still stands as he may be less active these days. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Οἶδα: Qwerfjkl is probably the best person to ask these days for help with mass nominations. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ 09:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Overcategorization of events by venue
Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Categorizing events by venue
Having lost at CfD repeatedly, and opposed again on the Talk, the user has attempted a non-conforming RFC.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Zero article subcategories of Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States
I just cleaned up this whole tree as there were a number of article where the text had been updated about the building's completion but the old category remained. Four of the subcats each had just 1 article and all 4 of those buildings were completed so I inadvertently emptied the subcats for Idaho, Puerto Rico, Guam and Bus stations which were created by @Good Olfactory, BrownHairedGirl, and Hugo999:.
Since I just updated the articles in good faith I'm assuming I can let the categories be automatically deleted without making a CFD nomination. (But I bet every reckless editor who empties a category out of process tells themself the same thing!)
If I should take a different approach, let me know. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, I think this is fine. If pages are in a category that they do not belong in, they should be removed, regardless of whether it empties the category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
C2F for one template
I have made a
The Gambia
Notice that per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#RfC: Name of the small country nestled within Senegal should probably result in Category:The Gambia sub-category renames as well. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- A follow up discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What next for The Gambia? was started today, so it may be worth waiting to see if the RfC close is challenged. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
How do I oppose an opposition here?
There's a proposal on the main page here to speedily move a category. Someone has opposed the speedy move, and given a rationale. I'd like to say something in favor of the move. But the discussion is now under the heading "Opposed requests." What's the proper way to put in my 2 cents? Do I do it right where it is, or do I move the discussion somewhere? Uporządnicki (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- ) 20:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- When a Speedy deletion is opposed, you can always start a “slow” (CFD) deletion discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Scope and juristiction
Do you guys have juristiciaon over userbox categories, or is that under MfD? User:Crainsaw 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- The specific proposal you appear to have written at request for comment is likely to be a better venue for it than either. * Pppery * it has begun...17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Should rcats be discussed here?
@
- Good question; I don't know of any precedents. That one mainly populates work-specific categories, but as it populates Category:Fictional work redirects by default, I suggest adding a CFD nomination for that category and linking its discussion to the TfD. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I think they're pretty much like any
Mass deletion proposals overwhelming
Hi. I am getting bombarded with mass proposals of deletion of categories I created, work alone that took me many hours. I find it unreasonable because I cannot be on top of all of them at the same time and cannot have time to populate them when that's the concern. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Could you please expand a bit what the problem is? Are the proposals to delete the categories because they are empty, and they have never been populated? Or are the proposals to move them to different names? Some cases we could be able to fix (and they have to do with a recent backlog in dealing with speedy CfD), and some we can not. Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I embarked in a project to categorize diverse subcategories in the category:assassinated politicians. Although I don't do it exclusively, because I work on Wikipedia the things that motivate me for the day. But suddenly a couple of editors started having issue with the categories I created and started all this proposals to delete or merge them, stating they are unpopulated or have few pages, etc.
- The issue is they have created all these proposals sometimes including many in the same thread and therefore I am not being given a reasonable time to work on them. For example, look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Category:Assassinated heads of state by time.
- I created them with the idea that other editors with the passing of time would help populate them, while I was also doing it through time, not all at once. For example, I spent many hours helping categorize Category:Assassinated American politicians. I was planning on continuing working on similar categories but I stumbled on this deletion proposals. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Thinker78, there is no problem with time, you are free to ask for a week or two to populate the categories. That being said, given you created the categories, the onus is on you to populate them, not to leave it to other editors. You should try to add at least 5-10 articles to each category. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have populated Category:Assassinated African heads of state. I will work on the other ones in the thread Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent if editors don't give other reasons for deletion, to avoid working in deleted categories. How long should I wait for additional comments? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Thinker78, there is no problem with time, you are free to ask for a week or two to populate the categories. That being said, given you created the categories, the onus is on you to populate them, not to leave it to other editors. You should try to add at least 5-10 articles to each category. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Draft categories question
Is there draft space for categories to see how a tree works out? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Category:Rcat template documentation pages
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Category:Rcat template documentation pages this was closed but I don't see the category in the /working sub-page. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gonnym, from my watchlist I can tell you, @Paine Ellsworth has been updating the pages with AWB. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up to sports clubs/teams merger
I just noticed the 6 June CfD to merge sports clubs and teams categories, and I wonder if this is an issue overlooked by the participants: Many of the articles under the sports clubs categories are sports clubs in the sense of country clubs or similar social venues, not competitive clubs/teams. As a result of the CfD, Category:Golf clubs and courses is now under the combined Category:Sports clubs and teams. Is this as desired? Or should such categories and articles be removed and placed under the venues tree instead (if not already there)? Pinging discussion participants Aidan721, Bearcat, Marcocapelle, Pelmeen10, Laurel Lodged and Fayenatic london. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Paul 012: it is certainly something that I overlooked. But I am not sure if the result is undesirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems that the term sports club is overloaded here. See sports club, which has a hatnote to sports team. —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't remove Golf clubs from Sports clubs and teams. I think the Golf clubs and courses hierarchy is already all within Sports venues, which is also clearly correct. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Format of discussions should change
Currently in the CfD pages there is a heading of the date as a sub-heading 1, and each individual discussion has a sub-heading 2. For example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 8, has === July 8 ===, and the first discussion is ==== Category:People from Drogheda, County Down ====.
In order to facilitate discussions, I propose instead:
- To do away with the date heading because it appears to serve no function, as each page is only for one day. If anything, add a lead.
- Each individual discussion should have a heading, not a subheading, mainly to be able to subscribe to the discussion. In the above example, it would be == Category:People from Drogheda, County Down==.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. But due to transclusion of the pages and other technical reasons, that's unlikely to happen. There are typically underlying reasons for the processes at CfD. If you have questions about any of them, please feel free to ask. - jc37 20:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please do tell me. I want to be educated about what's going on behind the scenes of the CfD format. Do you think it would be easier to change the format of the CfDs or to make a subscribe button for subsections? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- XfD processes are supported by bot work, among other things, so we should be careful when thinking about changing them.
- As for Watchlist, and watch for changes in that way. You can set your notifications and Watchlist options in Preferences. - jc3722:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Thinker78, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions for example is maintained by a bot. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please do tell me. I want to be educated about what's going on behind the scenes of the CfD format. Do you think it would be easier to change the format of the CfDs or to make a subscribe button for subsections? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- The date heading level is used on Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/All current discussions#Current discussions. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
CfD mass nom notice
{{Cfd notice}} works when a single category is nominated, but what can be used for a mass nomination? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
C2D rewording
Considering that C2D is used not only for categories under a main article, but also for categories under a main template, or a main project page (e.g., WikiProjects). Hence, I think that C2D should be reworded from the current "Consistency with main article's name" to something more inclusive. Thoughts? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom, It could simply be "Consistency with main page's name"? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looks fine. Might also need some wordsmithing with the last bullet point of }) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion for musician category with albums and songs subcats
As suggested by Marcocapelle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_19#Category:Broods, let's have a new speedy criterion to allow deletion of a musician category if it only contains a main article plus songs sub-cat and albums sub-cat. Such a category needs to be nominated for manual merging only of the main article if required, and would need to be manually deleted because the {{albums category}} & {{songs category}} templates on the sub-cats will populate it as long as it exists.
This could be set up as a special case of
- As the one who started the discussion about it I am obviously supporting this proposal. Deletion proposals at full CfD where this situation applies are never questioned or opposed. I would just make it a new criterion, C2G, to avoid confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why not start with 1 subcat; a main article plus either a songs sub-cat or an albums sub-cat? I think we have always deleted these at cfd but not always the 2 subcat case (which is at least gathering relevant material together). Oculi (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do not remember any cases that were kept which had a main article plus songs and albums sub-cats. In those cases the above templates automatically interlink the sub-cats to each other and to the main article. Ideally "see also" links can be added in the main article to the albums and songs sub-cats, but this is unlikely to be important, as the article usually links to all the notable albums and songs already.
- I would like to broaden out the criteria to a main article plus any one or two sub-cats, provided that the article and the sub-cats have links to each other. This would require the nominator to manually interlink any sub-cats of other types e.g. members, songs written by, song recordings produced by, album covers.
- It would probably be safe to extend the criteria to 2 articles & 2 sub-cats, e.g. where a discography has been split from the main article; but we should start with 1 article & 2 sub-cats, and discuss this option later. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with the further explanation about the interlinked subcategories. I am fine with both extensions as well, both these cases are routinely deleted at Cfd too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- This should be really specific. The common categories/articles in these that are typically deleted have categories of Foo songs and Foo albums, the main article and, at times, a discography page. When there is a members category for a band, those categories have not been deleted in CfD, but what about a members category when the band only has only one other category (either songs or albums)? Or what if there is a list of awards page but no discography article? What if the only two subcategories are "Albums produced by" and "Songs written by", would that be speediable? I also think a musician's or band's template should not be categorized in an eponymous category, and if it is, can be removed from the category or ignored as part of a speedy deletion nom. Image and sound files, whether in subcategories (such as Foo album covers) or placed directly in the eponymous parent, are already going to be in the articles that are in other categories of the band (e.g. album covers in the album articles), should not be considered either. Are there cases where "Category:Foo" should exist with only the following content? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Category:Foo albums
- Category:Foo album covers
- Category:Foo audio samples
- Category:Foo songs
- Foo
- Foo discography
- Template:Foo
Incorrect speedy move of Category:Marine fauna of Southern Africa to Category:Marine fish of Southern Africa
@Couiros22: This should not have been moved as dolphins are not fish. It's quite possible that some of the similar categories requested also have non-fish, but even if they don't, they could in time have non-fish such as molluscs or corals added to them, so should remain. I believe that the fish categories should instead subcat from the fauna categories. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- The easiest is to take the new category for CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, the easiest is to restore Category:Marine fauna of Southern Africa, make it a container for the fish category, and then move the non-fish in the fish category to the fauna category. I have now done this. BD2412 T 18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
How do I mass-nominate?
Hi, per precedent I'd like to mass-nominate Category:People by language family of descent and all its subcategories with either "language family", "Turkic" or "Slavic" in it, but nothing else. How do I do that easily without making it a tedious manual task? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- If by task you mean tagging the categories we have a few people able to do that with a bot but it might take a few days to get the categories tagged. Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter Fine with me, I'm not in a hurry. I would rather have a bot do it than tagging it all manually. I could use my time and my hands more productively. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- It would be quite easy with AWB. What do you want to do with the list? Oculi (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a list: Oculi (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Oculi Thanks so much! What do I do now? Do I still have to tag all these pages manually? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you just wish to delete them? Oculi (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Oculi Yes (per precedent). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Oculi how do I do that easily? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oculi (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw, yes, I can tag them all, just nominate one of them for deletion (so I have a discussion to link to) and I'll tag them. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl Thanks! Done: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_24#Category:People_by_language_family_of_descent. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl Thanks!
- @Nederlandse Leeuw, yes, I can tag them all, just nominate one of them for deletion (so I have a discussion to link to) and I'll tag them. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
- @
- Do you just wish to delete them?
- @
- It would be quite easy with AWB. What do you want to do with the list?
- @Ymblanter Fine with me, I'm not in a hurry. I would rather have a bot do it than tagging it all manually. I could use my time and my hands more productively. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- ┌───────────────────────────┘
@Nederlandse Leeuw,
Done— Qwerfjkltalk 13:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- One of these days I should get around to making a script for this. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: If you ever have the time, that would be awesome! - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, I've started to do this, just waiting for a chance to test it. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- At least I can get my edit count up. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know what notification template I should use on authors' talk pages? {{Cfd notice}} is only for a single category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, this took a bit longer than I expected. I haven't thoroughly tested the script yet, but it should work. See User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD.js. Works on Special:MassCFD. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: That second link is red. Is it needed? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, yes, I just needed a page to run the script on. It will override the normal text on the page. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just tagged Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Treasure troves by country using the script (on my tablet no less), so I'm now fairly confident it will work properly. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, yes, I just needed a page to run the script on. It will override the normal text on the page. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: That second link is red. Is it needed? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, I've started to do this, just waiting for a chance to test it. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: If you ever have the time, that would be awesome! - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- One of these days I should get around to making a script for this. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Fixing a few category rename blunders
Hi, I nominated a set of categories to rename last month at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Enigmatic taxa, but have since found out just too late that I set the wrong new names for two of the categories:
- Propose renaming Category:Bird enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic mammal taxa
- Propose renaming Category:Mammal enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic bird taxa
As you can see the two target categories for these two are paired with the wrong original categories. Unfortunately since the discussion has already been closed, the bot has already gone through all these categories as of writing, and for whatever reason renamed the first one back shortly after (???). (Edit: and has renamed the second one to its correct target, is this bot being manually controlled or can it detect these kinds of errors?)
What's the best way to deal with this kind of error? Is there a process for fixing this kind of error straight away (I'm actually not sure if the speedy renaming criteria apply here though), or do these have to be sent back through Cfd all over again? (Honestly I'm a bit disappointed nobody else caught this error of mine, let alone before closure of the discussion) Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Best is to contact one of the admins who process the Working page. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- (WP:CFDW, me in this case. I'm disappointed with myself for not catching it until after I told the bot to do the move and it had already done it, and figured I should fix the problem by moving the first one back to the original name, then moving the second one to its correct name, then moving the first one back to its correct name. * Pppery * it has begun...22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the intended
- Propose renaming Category:Bird enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic bird taxa
- is still TBD? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Hyphenation Expert Going by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working that rename is on its way I take it. Also thanks for informing me, I had no idea that was how CfD changes were organised until now. @Pppery And thanks for being on the case here, though I feel a bit silly for starting this mess I feel relieved to know it's being resolved already! Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's going to be done soon. That was the third rename in my remediation, which has to happen after the other two are done, which means three bot cycles. Given the amount of (unrelated) work I'm feeding to the bot each cycle takes a while. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- The final rename has now been done. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the intended
Notifying creator of category for a speedy merge request
Hi again, using Twinkle I just nominated a category (Category:Eogeometer, for those interested) for speedy merging because it meets C2F (one eponymous page). However, I found Twinkle didn't notify the article creator about this action, and nor can I find a suitable template for notifying an interested editor about speedy merging of a category (Template:Cfd notice doesn't seem suited as far as I can tell). Is there such a template to use? Or should I not worry about notifying the article creator in this case? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nevermind, the category has already been deleted now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl Yeah, I didn't see it in there either, but I saw that the creator had been informed before about an attempted speedy deletion for the same category in the past. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
BIO's and BLP's in Antisemitism vs. Islamophobia categories
This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say, Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself. Scratching post for now. This needs completely different angle of approach.౪ Santa ౪99° 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled on this old discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories whose conclusion says what it says, and most of the subcats contain a Hatnote that alert editors what to do and how to use these cats and its subcats, but then I checked few random subcategories in Category:Racism (including above mentioned Antisemitism / Islamophobia in the UK) and it appears only those concerning Islamophobia are emptied and watched over. This discrepancy problem won't be easy to correct since it comprises who knows how many articles and subcategories, maybe many hundreds.
(Men's) national football team categories
These categories were moved under C2D following page moves which were reversed before the categories were moved. The page moves have been reversed and a Requested Move is in progress so the category moves may need to be reversed if the articles are not moved again
- 56 national team categories were nominated as C2D here by Stevie fae Scotland at 15:59, 22 September 2023
- Example Andorra men's national football team
- I noted that pages had been moved following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#National team RfC
- Liz noted that the Albania category was a redirect
- A requested move discussion for the team articles was opened at Talk:Afghanistan national football team#Requested move 23 September 2023 and the articles were moved back to their previous names by Amakuru
- The categories, excluding Albania, were moved by Ymblanter here at 07:38, 25 September 2023
TSventon (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- It should have been 54 but yes. Apologies for assuming that the nomination would have been challenged at the time of reversion, had I known this was not the case I would have withdrawn. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @TSventon and Stevie fae Scotland: I did discuss this with Ymblanter at User talk:Ymblanter#National football team categories and we agreed that to save the possibility of moving them back only to have to move them aqain, the reversion would be put on hold and would take place upon the closing of the ongoing RM, if indeed it is closed with a decision not to move the pages. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Amakuru:, thank you, it is good to know that the issue was already on the radar. @Stevie fae Scotland: I counted 56, but can see I was wrong. TSventon (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @TSventon and Stevie fae Scotland: I did discuss this with Ymblanter at User talk:Ymblanter#National football team categories and we agreed that to save the possibility of moving them back only to have to move them aqain, the reversion would be put on hold and would take place upon the closing of the ongoing RM, if indeed it is closed with a decision not to move the pages. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)