Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

When is categories too small?

User:Taemyr/bridges by period, the argument is essentially that most of these categories are far to small. I am a bit unsure of how to proceed though, since I am not confident of how precedences run for this kind of thing. And tagging 100+ articles for merging can be seen as disruptive. Taemyr (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, categories that are parts of established series can be rather small. If you have more then 5 or 10 articles, it becomes less likely to win support for an upmerge. When you have several large categories in there as a group nomination, it is likely going to fail. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of these categories have 1 or 2 articles, although there is some with 5 or more sprinkled in. Taemyr (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States by nationality

There's a disagreement here whether the category applies to released prisoners. Can I get some category experts to chime in. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition to speedy criterion #1

Based on a series of full CfD discussions, I propose adding the follow to criteria #1:

  • This includes grammatical corrections that have been approved for similar cases by a full CfD.

This covers an issue raised in some recent speed rename nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Subcategory under wrong parent

What does one do if a (sub)category is under the wrong parent category? I see instructions and templates for deleting, merging and renaming but none of those really apply. Is there a way to "move" a subcategory? Specifically, Category:People from Chinatown, Manhattan really should be under Category:People from Manhattan, not Category:People from New York City, where it is now. In other words, it needs to be moved 'down' one level. Station1 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Category:People from Chinatown, Manhattan, and change Category:People from New York City to Category:People from Manhattan. You're not moving a category, you're just recategorizing it like you would an article. --Kbdank71 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I should have figured that out. Station1 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy backlog

Can someone look at the last two discussions and see if there are in fact objections that are holding up these nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? The registered historic places cats? Looks like just questions to me, not objections. --Kbdank71 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually someone took care of the ones that were pending for a while. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed for massive name-change of categories

Hi all - sorry to impose, but I'm going to need help with this one (possibly a bot), as I have dial-up and am also recuperating after surgerym, so I'm not at full strength or concentration level! I've just noticed Category:Olympic medalists and all its subcategories, especially the Category:Olympic medalists by nation tree with all its 100+ subcats. As was recently pointed out inr enames for the equivalent Commonwealth games categories, most English-speaking countries use the British spelling of medallist (with two Ls), and it seems to be normal practice to also use this spelling for continental Europe, Commonwealth countries, and countries using continental European languages as their main tongues (e.g., Latin America and former French colonies). What';s more, the IOC's English-language website uses the double-L spelling exclusively. That's likely going to require at the very least the majority of the by-nation categories to be renamed, which is a lot of work for a recuperating, dial-up, no-bot editor. Any help would be gratefully appreciated! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sporting knights: a more precise definition of the category

I'm interested in Category:Sporting knights. I'm not proposing to delete or necessarily rename the category, but to better define who qualifies for inclusion and who doesn't. At the moment, there are some people in it who were sportsmen who were knighted, but whose knighthoods were for reasons other than their sporting achievements. In one sense they're "sporting" "knights", but in another sense they're not "sporting knights". Some would say they should be included regardless; others would surely disagree. And there needs to be a discussion about it so that we're agreed what the rules for the category are. The talk page for the category directed me to the Help desk, which suggested I either raise the issue on individual talk pages for the knights in question, or use the CfD process somehow. The first suggestion seems inefficient - there's no guarantee I'll capture the attention of all users interested in this general category, unless I post the same question on dozens of talk pages, which I just ain't gonna do. The CfD idea seems to be all about deleting or renaming, which is also not what I'm wanting to do. I'm a little stuck as to how to proceed. Any ideas? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The aim of the category was to include only those who were knighted for their sporting achievements. It seemed reasonable to include team leaders such as Clive Woodward, Frank Williams and John Hunt, as they were closely involved in the sporting achievements. There were others included, such as Stirling Moss and Jackie Stewart, who were knighted long after retiring from sport, because the knighthood strongly related to their sporting careers. The category incorporated 2 existing categories for Cricket and Football which had been separately compiled. There is a similar Category for Sporting dames. The List of sporting knights and dames, which lists by sport, provides scope for noting those knighted sportsmen who fall outside the category. Any queries over individual entries could be aired on the talk page of the relevant list. Cjc13 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Cjc13. I guess my question then is, how would anyone know that "The aim of the category was to include only those who were knighted for their sporting achievements", without asking questions such as the one I've asked. I think that's a perfectly rational basis on which to have such a category, but without any information anywhere (that I can see) about this restriction, people could well feel that including other knighted sportspeople is justified. I'm sure there are many other categories where there's some sort of qualification like this, but there's nothing explicitly stated anywhere that makes newly arrived editors aware of them. It's not usual to have a note on a category that tells editors the "rules" for the category (who's in and who's out), but maybe there's a case for doing so in this instance. I think that would be better than leaving it unstated, and new editors finding their reasonable inclusions of other knights (notable sportspeople knighted for reasons unconnected to sport) reverted. We all learn things on WP through trial and error, but it doesn't always have to be trial and error. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I have now added a line of explanation to the category. Cjc13 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Good outcome. I've augmented the note to include other Commonwealth knighthoods (there may not be any such knighthoods related to sport, but theoretically there could be). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact there are: Viv Richards had a knighthood from Antigua and Barbuda and Clyde Walcott had one from Barbados. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Errors in century and decade categories

In going through the century renames, an interesting error shows up in that at least 2% of the entries in most century categories are incorrect. Remember that the 20th-century runs from 1901 to 2000. The 1st-decade of the 20th-century runs from 1901-1910. So when you place a category of the 1900s in the 20th-century, you are adding 1900 which is not correct and at the other end of the century we are dropping the last year of the century 2000 which is included in the 21st-century. I think that a 2% error is worth discussing to see if there is a simple fix. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We could categorize '00-'09 directly into centuries, bypassing the decade categories that span two centuries. - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure in the cases that you refer to, Vegaswikian, it's just a matter of the template that categorizes not being appropriately tweaked to account for this. It's a bit simpler to write a template that just puts any non-BC 4-digit year category that starts with "2" into "21st-century foo", but I believe it's not a huge deal to make an exception for the years that end in double-zero, and many templates already do it. If you keep track of what the 2% are, we should be able to make some pretty simple changes to the template(s) that can correct it. (Of course, if there's no template applying categories, you can just change the century category manually.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Therre are a lot of categories that have it right, Category:20th century years by country, for example, goes from 1901 to 2000. I checked a couple of 7th century, sorry, 7th-century cats that are also correct. Shouldn't be a big deal to fix them as we find them. --Kbdank71 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the relation to decades in that example, though. Of course Category:1800 by country should be in the 18th-century cat and Category:1801 by country should be in the 19th-century cat, so it's not surprising that they are. The problem here is where to put Category:1800s by country (or rather its parent Category:1800s). —JAO • T • C 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I see what is meant now. Decades unfortunately don't line up nicely with centuries, there being one year's difference. (Not sure exactly why, since obviously the first decade of the first century was 1–10. We really should have made a year "0", I suppose.) I would guess that an 1800s decade category would go in a 19th-century category, since only one year (1800) is actually an 18th-century year. Then the 1800 year category can be manually added to the 18th-century category. There's going to be some duplication, but I see it as unavoidable as long as we have the lack of perfect overlap in the way we define a century and the first decade of a century. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep many of the templates shortcut this and seem to ignore the actual years in a century. If this was just years it would be easier to correct. But with the decade categories including years from 0-10 it is much more difficult. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Barring Stephen's proposal above, I'm not sure there is a good solution. Even if we did what Stephen suggests, it would orphan the decade categories that end in "00" in the sense that they would have no century parent category, which would probably trouble a lot of people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If it were just the decades, the best thing would probably be to put Category:1800s in both Category:18th century and Category:19th century—after all, it does belong in both. But there's also the issue with the indirect categorization of articles, as used by several tools. The best thing I can say about this at the moment is probably that it's tricky. —JAO • T • C 09:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a tricky problem. From looking at the Opera cats I just re-worked, it looks like the century categories are correct. Category:21st-century operas goes from 2001 on. The decade cats are incorrect. Category:2000s operas starts at 2000. However, if you look at 2000s as "starting with "200-", and not the "200th decade" it is correct. I guess if we wanted to fix it, at least for opera, we'd just need to fix Template:Operadecade. I say "if" because it's not just opera that has the problem, and that adds up to a lot of work. While technically incorrect, I don't know if we're going to get a lot of people that are flummoxed by the year 2000 being in the wrong decade. --Kbdank71 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why we are talking. The only solution I have is to create decade categories as Category:20th-century, 1st-decade operas, and not Category:1900 operas. This makes it clear that we are grouping by decade and not by the digit in a certain position of the year. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I know, I'm just wondering if this is a problem that we can live with. You and I, having read and understand the issue, would know what Category:20th-century, 1st-decade operas means, but someone just coming across it? And I don't have any better ideas. I think we may wind up introducing more confusion than if we just left things where they are. After all, there are millions of people who thought that the new millennium began in the year 2000. --Kbdank71 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is probably not a huge deal. The problem will exist because there is in fact a one-year difference between the way we group decades and centuries. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that "1970s" means "1971–1980"—to most people it means "1970–1979"; similarly, "1800s" means "1800–1809", but the 19th century happens to have begun one year into this decade. I know it ultimately makes little sense, but I think it's one that users can probably figure out without us trying to perfect the dating system. That said, I've always thought there was a bit of a risk that users would interpret decade categories that end in double zero as century categories, since so many people say "1800s" when they are referring to the 19th century, or more precisely the period 1800–1899. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we dealt with this back in the dark ages of Wikipedia, but...I see nothing wrong with 1800s, 1810s, 1820s, etc. being in the 19th centry, while 1800 is also in the 18th century. Whether 1800s should also be in 18th century is open, but I don't really see it as necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy removals; opposition to hyphenations

An editor unilaterally deleted the entire list of the century/millennium hyphenation changes that were listed on the speedy page, arguing in the edit summary that they are not speediable.

How should we approach this? Three very recent CfDs ([1], [2], [3]) have approved and re-approved such changes, and the general sense I have taken from the general discussions about these was that these should now be speedied. But now that opposition has been expressed here, should we have full CfDs for all of them? At least for those who participate at CfD, that would get really old really fast since there are so many of these categories. If they are just going to be approved renames as the others have been, what's the point of having a full CfD vs. a speedy change? For now I've restored the list at WP:CFDS but of course won't process any more until we have some sort of consensus on how to proceed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since this was challenged and a third (or was that a forth) CfD was run I see no reason to t|ake this back to a full CfD. Yes, I am involved in this, but that does not matter. To remove these entries requires a sound reason. I suspect that WP:BOLD does not apply here. I was wondering where those tagged categories went. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with above. No need to run a full CFD since time and time again consensus has been to make the change. --Kbdank71 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"unilaterally deleted"? In my book, speedy equals uncontroversial. Since this is about a controversial mass move of literally thousands of long-standing categories, I dare say they aren't "speedies". So there were one or two votes for implementing "adjectival hyphenation" in century cats. I happen to think this is a terrible idea, but I am of course prepared to accept a true consensus for this mass move. By "true consensus" I mean an above-board advertisement of these plans of mass renames, with an input of at least several dozen community members, and at least 80% support votes. Once you can point to such a true consensus, I will accept your renames as speedies. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unilateral" means done by oneself or without consultation or notification of anyone else. The removal met that definition. Seeing as how 100s of categories have been tagged and listed and you are so far the only user to object, I think "controversial" may be a bit of an overstatement here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, if you want to implement a giant renaming spree, it is your burden to establish consensus before declaring it "speedy". Can you please appreciate the point that this isn't some remote category in the backwaters of Wikipedia that may well be renamed based a two or three votes consensus? This affects thousands and thousands of long-standing categories. Did it occur to you that Wikipedia has been going for eight years, with its share of grammar nazis, and until late 2008 nobody ever objected to "20th century philosopher"? I will tell you why: when "$Nth century" is used as an adjective it should be hyphenated is simply not a rule that is alive in the real world. I readily admit it sees some use. But by no means is it more common, or "more correct" than the unhyphenated spelling. Check the google books results for

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

at first glance well below 1:10. This is nowhere near anything that would make this giant move at all arguable. What irks me is that this huge transition went underway with all of two CfD votes, no community review, and nobody even bothered to check who is prescribing this, which major publications use it and which don't, the very basic minimal standard for any significant rename. Now I have made my point. It is now up to you to seek wider input for this, and if you manage to gain an 80% consensus for this thing, I will graciously step down and embrace our brave-new-hyphenation order. Otoh, if you do not, I fully expect you to send in the bots with equal zeal to "speedily" undo this disaster. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not gonna happen per what I said above. CfD is where decisions re: categorization are made, and that's where the issue was addressed multiple times, and the discussion was in agreement that future ones should be speedied. Feel free to try to reverse this decision at CfD, though. (Incidentally, it wasn't me who initiated these changes—I was merely involved in applying it consistently to the entire category tree—so you're probably referring your comments to the wrong person, ultimately.) You really just need to propose the change back in a CfD since the addition of the hyphenation has been proposed and approved multiple times already. Mind you, someone recently proposed the to change it back again, and those who expressed an opinion were unanimously opposed to eliminating the hyphen, so I don't think there's much support for it at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

I recently came across a recreation of a deleted category. I mentioned to the new editors that it was a recreation but he didn't seem to care. I know that there is WP:DRV for articles, and that recreated articles can be speedily deleted. How are recreations of deleted categories handled? The page in question is Category:Jewish American actors.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a recreation (G4). WP:DRV can be used to challenge the deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I see that the "general" SDs apply to any page, not just articles.   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The category I created is more valid now than when it was previously deleted in August 2007, owing to the significantly larger number of articles that now fit the criteria for inclusion. Jewish American actors are an influential and popular group (especially in the United States) with a similar culture and themes - why should said category not now exist? What problem does anyone reasonably have with such a cat? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just entered it at DRV. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Please move this if it is better elsewhere

I have put forward a proposal to the Wikipedia bot community (see WP:BON) that, if it gains a consensus, will hopefully bring order into chaos. First off, it would be nice to have some that it conversant in the naming criteria for categories to check over the names I have proposed. Secondly, is this something I should be bringing in front of a wider audience? Essentially it can be all handled within the community, and the categorisation of no mainspace pages if affect. All help appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My own personal opinion is that the bot noticeboard should be sufficient, however that may be a minority opinion. Just to CYA, you might want to post a link to the discussion at the pump, and just to cover the category aspect, put forth a nomination at CFD with a brief synopsis of what you want to do and give a link to BON. That way you've notified the bot people, CFD, and everyone else, basically. It may be overkill, but nobody would be able to say you didn't get the word out. --Kbdank71 18:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Done, I think. I might improve it later though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard category redirects now work

See discussion here. --Kbdank71 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Renaming process

I recently proposed a category for renaming, and it's been approved, but the renaming hasn't happened yet. Is this the way the process is supposed to work? I thought the approval would result in an actual rename happening. 70.251.149.197 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How recently? An editor has to perform the renaming, and I believe all the articles need to be moved individually. There are tools for doing this, but it's not an instantaneous process. Rklear (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And which category? --Kbdank71 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My proposal was a week ago, but looking more closely at the approval, it looks like it came today. Guess I was a little hasty. Nothing looked like it had changed (except for the approval) for a week, so I was thinking a week had gone by.
The original name was Category:The AN designation system. I'm surprised to hear you say this is a manual process. One reason I requested the move here was that I understood it would be an easier (automated) process. I had already gone through a similar manual process. It would be nice if this was clearer on the project page. 70.251.149.197 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My bot has that category queued up for renaming. Should be done shortly. --Kbdank71 16:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Spiffy. Thanks! 70.251.149.197 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

In my work resolving DEFAULTSORT conflicts and adding the listas parameter those pages that lack it I have noticed that sum Vital information missing categories have moved from the article page to the Talk page. I have learned that the decisions to do this was made here almost two years ago. I would ask that those decisions be reversed and the tags that have been moved be moved back to the main pages as soon as possible and not in 2011.

  • All categorization tags on an article are at the bottom of the page, out of sight. The only indication to a casual user that a piece of so-called vital information is missing is the category listing at the bottom of the page. It is extremely unlikely that a user will get down that far.
  • All categorization tags on a Talk page are at the top of a page. All project banners are also at the top of the Talk page. The full header for a Talk page is longer than two un-nested project banners. Any addition to the clutter at the top of a Talk page decreases a user's willingness to make a useful comment about the article and improve the quality of the article.
  • If it is not desireable for a category to be listed at the bottom of a page the category should be a hidden category but the tag for the category should be on the page that generates the information.
    • The date and place of birth are only on the article of a person. The tag for the category should be on the article page and the category listing should be on the article or hidden.
    • The quality assessment of an article is in the project banner on the Talk page the category listing should be on the Talk page or hidden.
JimCubb (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What "vital information" are you talking about? --Kbdank71 14:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


I apologize. I did not notice that there was a response even though this page is on my watchlist.

There are two bits of information that I believe are absolutely vital for a biography article, the date of birth and the place of birth. Without those pieces of information the articla is not a biography, it is a minor bit of fluff about a person who is not suficiently notable to have an article on WP but managed to get a fan to write it anyway. The date of birth of a person and the place of birth of a person only appear on the Main Page. The only reason for either to be on the Talk Page is when there is a dispute about the accuracy of the information. A tag of any sort really should be on the page that contains the reason for the tag.

The other two pieces of information apply to persons who are no longer living, the date of death and the place of death. The same rationale applies to death information as to birth information.

Again I stress that if a category's listing is intrusive, even if it is necessary to some one or some group to be able to track the pages in the category, the the listing should be hidden. It is not difficult to view hidden categories if one wants to do so. It is not necessary to view such categories unless one has a need to do so.

Is that better? My request, very tersely put, is to put the tags for missing date of birth, place of birth, date of death and place of death at the end of the Article rather than at the top of the Talk Page of the Article.

JimCubb (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography wouldn't be the better place to ask this. I do note that Category:Date of death missing does appear on talk pages, but Category:Year of birth missing appears on the article itself (but hidden). I see that Template:Lifetime automatically adds these categories. I don't know why it's inconsistent, but CFD isn't really for questions of where categories go, it's more for deletion and renaming categories. --Kbdank71 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On 26 April 2007 it was decided here that the Date of birth missing tag should be put on the Talk Page rather than the Article Page and on 22 April 2007 it was decided here that the Place of birth missing tag should be put on the Talk Page rather than the Article Page. That is why this section is named "Request for reconsideration". I would like for some one who is more experienced than I in the ins and outs of WP politics to look at those discussions and figure out how to reverse the decision that was announced.

Does that make sense?

JimCubb (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Question: What are you going to gain by this? Does it matter if the category is on the talk page or the article itself (and hidden)? I understand your reasoning that a category claiming missing information should be where the missing information is missing from, but it's not like this is on a random page. It's on the talk page of the article. I guess I just don't see the point.
That said, if you want to have this reconsidered, I would recommend nominating it for a full CFD, just like the ones that got it switched in the first place. --Kbdank71 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any personal stake in this. It is hard to imagine how anyone could have a personal stake in this. I guess the reasons that I am harping on it so much are that

  1. These are the only categories that have been moved off the main page onto the Talk page.
    • Both discussions were closed in favor of moving because of the large amount of precendence for doing so.
  1. Category tags on the Talk page are at the top of the page and look kind of messy in edit mode whereas Category tage on the Article are at the bottom of the page and are generally unseen.
    • Category tags on the Article use the DEFAULTSORT value to sort correctly in their category listing or a pipe has to be put into each tag. DEFAULTSORT is not to be used on the Talk Page. Therefore, every category tag on the Talk page must have its own pipe.
  1. The majority of the participants in the original discussion are not members of the Biography project and the decisions that were made to move the two tags were besed on reasons that are not supported by reality.

I guess I have to figure out how to propose a discussion on a category. I really did not want to add that to my cv.

JimCubb (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

The organization of this page is horrid. Most users coming to this page will do so with the intent of nominating articles for some kind of discussion. We should make it easy for them by having appropriate subsections, so that it's obvious where to look for delete, rename, etc. As it currently stands, a user coming to this page has an easier time finding the nomination process for "speedy renaming" than just straightforward "renaming". The way the article currently reads, it's like a mess of red tape. Proper organization will significantly reduce this problem. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Show us how, preferably in your sandbox. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Not interested. I'm not looking to be a category guru. I'm just trying to rename a category. I used the "we" above to mean "we Wikipedian editors". 70.251.149.197 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in developing this thought far; I'm sure you will see where I'm going with this, but below is a start.
This page represents several related, but different procedures. Here are some conceptual changes that will make the page much more accessible:
First, use better sections. Since this is a group familiar with categories, I don't think I need to go into the virtues of effective categorization. I think this article is at odds with itself in many places because it is trying to be too general. I'm not an expert, but I can see four main purposes here: adding, deleting, renaming, and redirecting categories. Can we please organize into those broad categories, and then use those sections to drill down into more special cases, like "speedy" actions? I'm willing to do some of the work, but I can't do it wholesale. Would anybody stand in my way if I were to reorganize in this direction? 70.251.243.28 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The main CFD page is a hodge podge of stuff that is pretty difficult to follow if you're not a CFD regular. I'll give a redesign a whack in my user space. Let me set it up and I'll give the link. --Kbdank71 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
See below. --Kbdank71 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussing categories BEFORE implementation

Is there a place to discuss proposed categorization schemes before there implementation? For example, there have been recent discussions at WT:PHARM:CAT on how to categorize pharmacology articles, a discussion involving a lot of the WP:MED and WP:PHARM people. However, is there general a place where this discussion can be posted to get feedback from the general wikipedia community (as occurs with formal CfD threads) before anything is actually implemented? Thanks in advance for your response. kilbad (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cfd is the place. Just because most noms are deletions etc doesn't mean they have to be. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


On the use of "women"/"woman" as an adjective in Category names

I'd like to discuss the choice to use "women" and "woman" as adjectives. I know this usage has been going on for a several decades now, and this may be a contentious (to those who care about these types of things, anyway), as well as major proposal (in terms of altering the names of so many Wikipedia Categories) but my very strong feeling is that the time has come to let the rules of English back into play in terms of this usage as a means of (1) celebrating the gains of the women's rights movement and (2) in order to move on from a time of (understandable but now unnecessary) reactiveness and insecurity on the part of some feminists.
This irregular (and grammatically speaking, marked; and in my opinion, ugly looking and sounding) usage (we don't say "man nurse" or "men nurses") comes from a time when some feminists felt the need to assert the sacredness & importance of the concept of femaleness (oops!) womanhood by forbidding the use of 'female' when applied to humans, and breaking the rules of English grammar (which was seen as one of the agents of patriarchy & oppression) was felt to be one way of accomplishing this. However, unfortunately the usage actually achieves an unintended - and very unfeminist - effect in that it makes a woman's gender seem like an obsession, and moreover a thing of more importance than her profession is (which implication I personally, as a woman, resent). (Why else impose an awkward noun before another noun when a perfectly good adjective exists for the purpose?) The usage is now an anachronistic gesture, based on an insecurity and reactiveness which we no longer need to engage in (however understandable it might've been in its time).
Another strong reason for reverting to the correct grammar on this is: how in the HECK are we to explain this bizarre irregularity to learners of English? And is it worth having to?
(I know, it's a long, pedantic rant. But I'm really curious to see if anyone out there agrees. Or cares.) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Axiom "Politically correct language is inherently POV". Also see NewSpeak, i.e. controlling the way people are able to think by controlling the language they're allowed to use.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm an old fan of '1984'. Have you by any chance had any contact with a thing called "Landmark Education Forum"? My friends & I call it "Brandmark" and it's basically a 'postitive thinking' style cult which uses its own quite hilarious NewSpeak.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW the grammatical and lexical systems of most other languages, especially major Inde-European ones, but also Japanese and various others, cannot be "de-genderized" easily because gender is inbuilt into their structure. There aren't many comparisons out there for how English gets raked over the politically-correct coals all the time, often fesulting in obfuscatory terms and downright un-idiomatic and un-grammatical chimeras...Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder what would happen if I were to go through & change all the "women" and "woman" (non-)adjectives in Wikipedia Categories (to "female" of course)? Would I disappear in the night & never be heard from again? But seriously, how do I get an admin's advice/feedback on this? --Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture by City

I'm not sure if this is where I should raise this but I have noticed that there is a Category called Culture by city and that it has a Subcategory called Culture by nationality and city. This seems a bit odd to me. Any ideas?Sterry2607 (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

link 'em please! Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Two speedies can't be speedied

What is the rationale behind this please? It seems very silly to go through a five day CFD just because an editor fumble-fingered twice instead of once in creating a category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've brought this up in the past. I wonder if WP:SNOW would apply in such cases? After all, if each change is non-controversial, then surely both changes together would be. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I questioned this here, and GO gave me an explanation here. I agree that we should allow them. --Kbdank71 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems like we discussed this before and I was the one who raised the possibility of abuse. Since then I've thought about this a bit over the weeks and I think we should probably allow them in most cases. It could theoretically be abused if taken to an extreme, but I think these cases will probably be caught by protests at WP:CFDS anyway. Ideally, I think we should probably have a tacit agreement to let these go through speedy when both changes are trivial and non-controversial, which could be based on WP:SNOW, I suppose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • May we turn this into a formal proposal/discussion to eliminate criterion 2 from When the speedy rename procedure should not be used:? Otto4711 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • To avoid the conversion to the formal proposal getting lost in the midst of this discussion, it might be a good idea to start a new section below that clearly sets out the formal proposal to eliminate "don't use #2." I will vote in favor of eliminating it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Little help, please

I've started implementing the changes to the image categories that was discussed here. I did the first two, but my internet connection is getting flaky and slow, and I could use some help with the rest.

Care needs to be taken, as these categories (and their dated subcats) are populated by a template, as is the link that creates the new subcat each day, and the images themselves need null edits to show up in the correct subcat, etc, etc. It's just a lot of work, and it's easy to miss something.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Kbdank71 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and try to help. Incidentally, is Kbdankbot stalled? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I got through one more of them, but I'm off soon. As for Kbdankbot, no, it's churning through some renames right now. I had shut it down until my internet problems cleared up, though. --Kbdank71 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I was doing the subcats and template changes too. It would certainly be easier to not do those, but then the subcats would be inconsistent. What do you think? --Kbdank71 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Since they are dated I thought maybe we could just grandfather them in and let them be deleted when empty without making the change. But then again, if they aren't changed, the newly created ones probably won't be properly named or if they are different it will confuse people, so I should probably change them too. Still figuring out all the ticks in these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Doh, I did some without changing "fair use" to "non-free". I'll go back and fix those. All in all, this looks like a project that will consume some time—it may take a few days to get it all squared away. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There is still work to do, but I've made a big dent in it. Thousands of null edits are still outstanding. Does the general WP work queue actually perform these anymore? I haven't seen it happen for weeks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Simplifying the main CFD page

Per the discussion above, I've copied several CFD pages into my user space in an attempt to simplify CFD.

They are

Many of the preliminary changes I made were simply removing duplicate information and instructions. I also consolidated some stuff and added an "optional notification" section.

If you want to make edits of your own, feel free, but please be careful; I didn't move everything into my userspace. Some parts of User:Kbdank71/CFD, such as the "Discussions awaiting closure" and "Speedy criteria" sections are still transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria, respectively. If you want to edit either of those sections, let me know and I'll copy them to my user space as well.

Opinions?

--Kbdank71 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? --Kbdank71 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it help to collapse some sections? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Bueller here. Opinions: 1) broad sections based on purpose (deleting, merging, renaming, and redirecting). Separate procedures for each is okay/preferred. 2) eliminate "Preliminary steps". This is vacuous at best. For example, if the user determines that a category should be deleted, I doubt they would look under "Merging". Further, what's the difference between a preliminary step and a regular step? I think the distinction is insignificant. Thanks for working on this. 70.251.241.131 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Idea

When a category is renamed based on a CfD, perhaps we could document a link to the CfD on the category's talk page for easy reference if needed in the future? kilbad (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What links here works too. --Kbdank71 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you expand your comment. I did not entirely follow you. kilbad (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll explain. Taking a category at random from above, Category:Women judges, look at the Toolbox at the left hand side of the screen. There is a link called "What links here". Clicking on it gives you Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Women_judges, a list of pages that link to the category, including two CFD discussions. The only problem is that since it just lists links, not all of the discussions will be renames for that category (for example, only one of the two for women judges are because that category was nominated.)
It's not a perfect solution, but I'm not sure there is a big demand to check old CFD's as you describe, and adding a link on every renamed category's talk page is a lot of work (for what may be very little return). --Kbdank71 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am not suggesting that this be done retroactively, but something we could consider doing from now on. Additionally, I think if a comment is placed at the time of renaming, it should not create a lot of extra work. I think the "what links here" solution is ok if there are not many items linking to a page, else, finding a past CfD is going to be difficult. My reason for suggesting this is that making past CfD's easy to reference allows for quickly looking up past precedence and naming rationals, which can guide an editors naming of future categories and subcats. kilbad (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Eliminate When the speedy rename procedure should not be used #2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the suggestion a couple of sections up, this is to formally propose the elimination of criterion #2 of when a speedy rename can't be done: When proposing that two or more changes should be made, each of which qualifies under the speedy criteria. If both of the changes qualify for speedy renaming, meaning they are both uncontroversial changes, it strikes me as an exercise in pointless bureaucracy to go through a full five-day CFD to fix the mistakes. The idea was expressed that allowing multiple speedy changes would somehow open the speedy rename process to abuse, but given the diligence exercised by a number of editors here the potential for abuse seems low; honestly I'm having difficulty envisioning how one could commit abuse through this process anyway. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Any attempts to abuse, if they can be dreamed up, will in all likelihood be caught anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (not sure if only admins can vote here, but I lend at least moral support). Someone trying to slip through, say, a POV name change would be unlikely to come to CfD in the first place. If anything wouldn't such things be caught easier en masse than if trickled in over time? -choster (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, project page was updated per the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Input on naming sought

Please see User_talk:KenWalker#Category:Clayoquot_Sound_region_or_.3F.3F. I'd like to avoid having to pursue a CD by naming the suggested categories wrongly....advice pls.Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Large hierarchies - what to do with them?

While cleaning up Erlang programming language article I spotted Category:Programming languages created in 1986. I have seen quite a few silly categories related to programming languages ("families", use of brackets, semicolon as separator), trivial but at least somehow valid and of entertaining value.


Not so for "creation date" - such concept is absurd, programming language is not a child or a product with fixed release day. Most of the languages are gradually developed over years or even decades and the year when the ideal was first announced or initial version made public is practically irrelevant for anyone. It doesn't make splash like new model of car and nobody chooses between languages by such date.

Specifically, a research project later known as Erlang was started (just vague ideas, new language was not yet envisioned) in an Ericsson laboratory in 1986 (there were some prior experiments) and it took several years until the main features of the language had stabilized and the Erlang had been selected. It is still under development and the core language still gets modified. All of this had been documented by authors of Erlang.


Should this be just a single category I would propose it for deletion but the guy who added it created a whole tree of categories starting with Category:Programming languages by creation date. I do not have stamina to create specific CfD for every member of this tree and have no clue about a simpler mechanism. If someone knows a better way or has enough of time to deal with this beast, please do. The WP:CfD page could give hint what one could do in such case. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians who like...

Before starting a mass-CFD, are these past precedents on "Wikipedians who like <insert tv show here>" i.e. Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek ? –xeno (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are but not in bulk as you are planning :) Check wp:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/February_2008. You may probably find some more examples out there. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You also might want to ask that question at WT:UCFD. --Kbdank71 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
<slaps forehead> No wonder I wasn't finding anything. Forgot UC's have their own FDs. =) Thanks. –xeno (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Jihad?

Is there some sort of holy war in progress to delete as many categories as possible? I ask because several categories related to spaceflight, which have existed and been well-used for years, have recently been nominated for deletion. What's up with that? Is this truly an effort based on some idea that it helps our project to delete well-used categories? If so, please provide a pointer to the rationale for that! (sdsds - talk) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from Category:People currently in space, I don't see recent activity in this area. I think you'll get better clarity by reading the nomination rationales and addressing your questions to the nominators. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There were also some satellite ones recently, but as far as I know there's no coordinated effort to target any type of category for discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speed close

Would someone please speedy close the CFD on Category:Suspended deck bridges as a mistaken nomination, here? Same as was done for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspended deck bridge. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The speedy close for the article suspended deck bridge was because the real issue with that article is that the material needs to be moved back to suspension bridge; an Admin determined it was inappropriate to discuss deletion of the article because that would also delete valuable Wikipedia content. This is not the case for the category. This is easily seen when reading the CfD discussion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge UCFD here, redux redux

So, after the original decision to split UCFD out from CFD, it seems to have outlived its usefulness. There were only five UCFD noms for all of March. Looking back through the various talk archives, I can find the re-merger being discussed first here, then there, with nobody objecting to the re-merge, but it was never actually done. If no one objects in the next few days, I'll merge them. (And no, this is not an April Fool's joke; it's already April 2nd in my time zone.)--Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no objections from me. --Kbdank71 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And still no objections from me. VegaDark (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Only if in doing so we address and/or remain cognizant of the concerns in the previous discussions.
The main parts being that the working page stay it's own page (should be zero problem - I can update the Main working page to note it), and that we come to a consensus about what to do about the archiving, past and future.
And for sanity's sake, let's leave this discussion open at least 24 hours before performing the merge. - jc37 19:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd prefer if the user category nominations had either its own or a supplemental archival system to make it easier to find user cat debates, as to make it easier to update the topical index as BF mentioned previously. Either that, or someone would have to be actively updating it often, which is a tall task to ask someone of considering how behind it already is. VegaDark (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think for the topical index, the solution would be to create a subpage of it for "uncategorised" UCFD discussions. For one thing, it would help reduce the length, and for another, it would provide fairly straight-forward target location for a bot to paste a discussion link to.
Then whenever someone has time to deal with the backlog, they can do so, since categorising the discussions under specific sub-headings requires a bit of human discernment : ) - jc37 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that made sense regardless of the merge, so it's now boldly done - Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index/Unsorted. - jc37 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about the topical index. A few weeks ago I compiled the list for several months worth of discussions (since the last update in August) and saved it to Notepad, and I guess I just never came around to sorting it and adding it to the index. I think it's too late tonight, but I'll try to add it all tomorrow. By the way, I like your idea of moving the unosrted list to a subpage, since it separates the organized, presentable content from the "to-do" portion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the two concerns raised so far appear to be that the working page and archives should stay separate. The working page is not something that'll be hard to deal with, as jc37 said: just add notes to the working page and to the closing instructions to make clear that user cats are handled differently. Anyone closing CFDs should be competent enough to figure out that minor increase in complexity. As far as separate archiving goes, should we just keep the current archival system going? That way, UCFDs, once closed, would be cut from the CFD log page and pasted to the UCFD archive page for that month. Since that's the way UCFDs are archived now, it shouldn't be a tall order. Any other caveats I should be aware of? I have reviewed the old discussions, but I may have missed stuff.--Aervanath (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned those are the main concerns.
If we merge this, continued archiving should be a copy, not a "cut" from the logs, however. (retains "context", which may be important in certain situations.)
And I agree with VegaDark, we should come to a consensus how to deal with the archiving. Especially since there will be less of an intuitive motivation to archive once merged with the log pages.
What would be awesome is if the bot which does the archive for CfD could differentiate UCFD discussions. Perhaps have a separate template for closing these discussions, or at least add a switch to Template:cfd top. that way the bots would recognise these as these types of cats, and could archive them automatically.
Anyone have other or better ideas? - jc37 08:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could make a "UCFD top" template to use with some hidden code in it to allow a bot to easily identify user cat discussions. The closer would have to actually use the template when closing, however, which I'd imagine would not happen all the time and would require someone to double check every time a user cat nom is closed. VegaDark (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's why I was thinking that perhaps we should just slightly modify cfd top. something like:
{{subst:cfd top|user=true}}
Or some such.
With the result of that being "something" unique that a bot could/would identify. - jc37 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, {{ucfd top}} is already a redirect to {{cfd top}}. If we changed it so that it was instead a separate template, that would work even better. It would just be a copy of {{cfd top}}, the code would exactly the same, except for a comment tag somewhere that a bot could lock onto. That way the closer won't even have to type out an extra parameter; it's just one extra letter that makes the difference. The easier we can make this for closers, the better. Is there already a bot that patrols Cfd that could take this on, or should we file a new bot request?--Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How about making UCFD a subpage of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (i.e. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User), much like WP:CFD/S is right now? I know that this is not quite the same as merging the two processes into, but it's a step above having two entirely separate processes. By the way, I don't think that this would set a precedent for creating CFD subpages for every namespace, since only the user namespace has two guidelines devoted just to its categorization: Wikipedia:User categories and Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just boldly moved the page to that target name. - jc37 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if UCFD were to merge back into CFD, but retain its separate "working page" (I read as "nomination page") and archive list, then... what would actually change? To me, those are the only two things in the process, other than the nomination template. Please explain. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 04:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

By "working page" we are talking about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User, not the main nominations page. VegaDark (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rest In Peace, UCFD

I have added a {{historical}} tag to UCFD, and removed all references to it from WP:CFD. I have also edited Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions so that user cats will be treated differently than others. I have also created {{ucfd top}} (as noted in the admin instructions) for use with user cats. It is the same syntax as {{cfd top}}. If I missed anything, please let me know, or do it yourself.--Aervanath (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the first few nominations so we shall see how smoothly things go. VegaDark (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
At least one person doesn't seem happy [4]. I personally don't have any opinion on the matter, this is not an area where I'm active. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just discussion. Not delete, merge, or rename

If I want to discuss a set of categories, and not immediately propose to delete, merge, or rename one or more of them, with more than those who read the categories' talk page, where can that take place? patsw (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends.
Here is one place.
Another might be at the WP:VP
Another might be on the talk page of an article directly related to the topic
And another might be one or more category talk pages.
Which ever the choice, leaving neutral friendly notices at the other locations linking to the discussion may help bring others to join in on the discussion. - jc37 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Usually the best place to start is at a relevant project talk, with notices on some article talk pages, then bring it here. Unless it is a huge issue, VP is unlikely to b e interested, though the discussion could be advertised there. Hardly anyone watches category talk pages, but you could post notices there. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation needed

User:John Carter thinks that "as an admin", he is entitled, both before and after a debate, to empty a category and then speedily delete it (this a category related to a dispute he has been involved in, indeed a major protagonist in). Can someone explain to him why this is not acceptable behaviour? Thanks. His comments are here. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User categories

I'm going to offer the hypotheses that most users interested in editing and categorizing articles do not care what happens to categories for wikipedians interested in pokémon, etc. From what I can see of the merge discussion the only real argument was "low traffic" but that seems to have (cough cough VegaDark) risen with a vengeance following the merge. Does anyone have a good reason not to just revert back to the way it was? — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First, my thanks to CW for folding all of those UCFDs into the "hidden" template. I was very concerned to see that the standard listings at CFD had been swamped by such a large number of UCFDs, as it is already hard enough for people to scan through each days listings to pick out the ones that are of interest. So I was greatly relieved by the huge reduction in visual clutter achieved by CW's wise move, and would not have any particular objection to going forward with the merged operation as long as it's not disruptive to the normal functioning of CFD. I'm wondering if there is some way to set things up such that the UCFDs would automatically be added into a single collapsed ("hidden") section that would always appear in the same location (either top or bottom - preferably the latter) every day. Cgingold (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caught anyone off guard-I try to do nominations in groups as to minimize the number of edits necessary. It certainly isn't going to be an everyday occurance. That being said, I hadn't done any nominations for a while so there had been a lot of recently created categories that had gone unchecked, and I still have a few weeks of category creations to look over to be caught up. I'd have to mildly oppose having them permanantly default as collapsed whenever nominated (although I can understand the one made in this instance), as one of the main reasons people had been discussing a merge is the lack of participants at UCFD, and having it collapsed like that is likely to turn people off from participating. VegaDark (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there were minimal objections to the merge based on the good faith statement that they were rare. Now the merge occurs and we have a bunch of these. I am strongly tempted to say split them out again. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Despite what my recent nominations may indicate, they have become pretty rare recently. March had a total of 4 nominations, although that is particularly low. I would guess a more average month is going to look like February, which had 19. So far we have 12, and that's mostly because I wanted to test the waters of the new system. I doubt we will have more than 30 by the month's end, which I would say is pretty reasonable. VegaDark (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra details, VD. I don't think one or two per day would be terribly burdensome, but 3 or more should be folded into their own collapsed section as discussed above. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I dunno...
I think it's like how things normally go at CfD. In any given day there may be a few or a lot of nominations.
And these nominations are like any other. We can choose to comment or not as it may interest us. I'd hesitate to call it "clutter".
A better solution I think, might be to implement a few of the "speedy" criteria that we've previously discussed. Several of these noms would have then gone to speedy and not to CfD, which could lessen the perceived "clutter".
These would be:
  • Delete 0-level language categories
  • Rename/Merge a language cat to match babel-naming conventions (and therefore, ISO 639).
  • Rename/Merge "who like/love/enjoy" to whatever the others of their type have ("who read", "who watch", etc.), per the parent cat.
  • Rename Users to Wikipedians (except in the case of babel-specific language categories).
  • Rename to make it clear that these are Wikipedian categories. (Such as by adding the words WikiProject or Wikipedians).
  • And of course the typical CfD speedy reasons like plurals or caps
These are fairly common, and could probably be speedied. - jc37 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I don't like the idea of hiding the UCFD's in a hab box. It makes it impossible to link directly to the discussion and it'll mean people ignore it that much more often. –xeno (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with Xeno. I don't really care about the deep issues of CfD, UCFD, and how everything should work; all I know is that when they're hidden like this it's a pain in the ass to get to the section I am trying to watch, because the section links no longer get there and I have to scroll around and click things (I know, very painful). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So how about moving them back to a separate page… — CharlotteWebb 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible solution: I think it would make a huge difference to simply keep all of the UCFD discussions grouped together instead of having them strewn at random among all of the others. That's the real issue, because that's what makes it harder to spot those CFDs that are of interest, which can be a real problem on days where there are a lot of different sections. So I propose grouping the UCFDs under a heading like "USER CATEGORIES" or "UCFD DISCUSSIONS" (feel free to tweak that) at the bottom of each day's page. I think this would keep everybody happy. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That would require an addition to the instructions of "add the newest nominations to the top", and upkeep when people invariably ignore the "add newest nominations to the top unless it's a user category which go at the bottom". How about putting the UCFD nominations on a separate page and transclude them onto each daily CFD page? That way they'll always be at the bottom. --Kbdank71 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(De-dent) - I actually like the "bottom of the page" solution. (And rather dislike the transclusion idea, sorry Kbdank.)
I was going to implement it with the categories already nominated, but wasn't sure at what "level" (number of equal signs) "User Categories" should be.
The date has 3, and each entry has 4 (and sub entries have 5 or more).
Would it break any bots to place "User categories" at 3, so that entries are still at a 4 level?
In other words have two date headers per page, with one specifying the user categories section. - jc37 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Could we hold off a month or two and see how it goes with the merged CFD working as normal, without any special variations for user cats? I.e., no "hide" boxes, no extra sections, etc. Yes, VegaDark nominated a whole bunch right away, but sometimes you're going to have mass noms of categories, whether user or not. I think that we will find that it won't be as much of a nuisance as it initially appears. If I'm wrong, and it does turn out to be a nuisance over the long run, I will be happy to un-merge the processes, as I'm the one who merged them in the first place (although I didn't make the decision on my own). However, I would request that CFD editors give the re-merge a trial run of at least a month before declaring it a failure. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No.
Our goal in this case should be to try to minimise the disruption. Yes there will be "some" disruption, regardless, simply due to "change". But if merely moving them to their own section on a log page can help minimise the disruption (and indeed, help some with navigation for those who may not be used to CfD as opposed to UCFD, or for those who use a trancluded form of watching the CfD discussions), then I don't see any problem with that, at least on the short term.
As such, I've added the dated headers I noted above. (So far only 2 pages apparently needed them - April 5 and 6.) - jc37 05:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, April 7 has a user cat nomination as well (which you participated in, :P) - Or were you only thinking user cats should only have its own section if 2 or more are nominated in a particular day? VegaDark (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I did a quick scan and missed that one when commenting here : p
Anyway, Otto removed the header from the 6th, and I didn't re-add it since: there were only 2 noms, and honestly it was just probably less disruptive to "let it go".
I think at this point, we can probably feel free to "group" user category noms by moving them to the bottom if we wish (as we can do with any set of noms). And just add a date header if there happen to be more than a few. (Like on April 5.)
This way we reduce disruption of multiple noms, while minimising disruption which may be caused by page modification.
(Honestly, I think we should probably follow this in the case of multiple, semi-related noms (especially group noms) of any type. All too often a small nom "in between" has been "lost in the shuffle".) - jc37 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll ratify that.--Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, VegaDark nominated a whole bunch right away, but sometimes you're going to have mass noms of categories, whether user or not. ← Yes, this is a small price to pay in the process of building an encyclopedia, but most user category discussions have scupper-all to do with that. On a more practical note, when multiple categories are nominated for CFD at the same time they tend to be hierarchically related in some way, so it usually makes sense to put them under the same heading (and inside a show/hide box whenever the complete list of categories is likely to take up more screen-space than the total salient discussion related to them, that is, the larger-scale renamings tend to be less controversial—most of us exercise good judgment in that area). — CharlotteWebb 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So, uh...how many user cats am I allowed to nominate at one time now before people start panicking again? I currently have 6 written up with another 4 I still need to write up. If I nominate all 6 I have done, are people going to start demanding we unmerge user cats from here? Do I need to disguise the amount by only doing a couple a day? Is having 1 a day for a month really that different than having 10 nominated 3 days out of the month? VegaDark (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, it is. There's less "discussion fatigue" that way. People are more likely to participate in all the debates for one day if there are five rather than fifteen. It's not a matter of of disguising what you're doing, it's a matter of rationing it out so that the CFD log pages don't start to resemble the Afd log pages in length (yes, I'm exaggerating somewhat, but you know what I mean). I doubt CharlotteWebb or anyone else would have a problem with one or two usercat noms a day. And it probably won't even be that many, given that the average rate of usercat noms is usually far less than one per day. Why not just nominate each usercat as you get it written up, instead of writing them up ahead of time and nominating them all at once?--Aervanath (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It only takes a few minutes to write the average one up when I'm motivated to do so, so nominating each as I write it up would still result in many being nominated the same day- unless I intentionally do a small amount at a time, which is a less efficient use of my time. I suppose I'll only nominate a couple a day for now, but I see no reason this is any different than nominating large groups of regular categories at the same time, which obviously there would be no room for complaints if that occurred. VegaDark (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply put: There is absolutely zero limit on the number of nominations that are allowed here on any particular day.

And further, it doesn't disrupt these pages any more than any other nomination might.

If you don't want to comment in a particular discussion, it's easy: don't comment.

To help soften the merging, we've even allowed for moving them to the bottom of a page, and even placing a separate header at the top of the section.

But suggesting that there should be a limit to the number nominations, especially ones that someone has already written up?

No. Absotively posilutely not. - jc37 09:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

UCFD closing templates

Is there any reason why we shouldn't just use the CFD top and bottom templates when closing UCFD discussions? It would appear that the only difference between CFD and UCFD is a) color, and b) the word "user" in front of "category", neither of which I believe are necessary. I ask because I use User:The wub/CloseCFD.js to close CFD discussions, and it doesn't differentiate between CFD and UCFD. Since we've merged the two, why not make it easier for administration? --Kbdank71 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still waiting to hear back from Rick Block concerning archiving. (He's responded once, with questions, I've answered, and am now waiting on his response.)
The use of the different template (or adding a "tag" to the existing template) was only suggested as a means to that end.
So for now, cfd top should probably be fine, but could you make a list somewhere of those closed in April, so that we can go back and manually archive until things are squared away with Rick? - jc37 15:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm known as rather lazy, and I don't feel like finding out for myself (that and I'm still peeved about the whole "I hate your stupid transclusion idea"); can you bring me up to speed on the whole archiving thing? What's the deal? --Kbdank71 15:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I've disliked the idea when it's been brought up in the past as well, so it's nothing personal : )
As for the archiving, from what I understand, Rick's bot does the CfD archiving. And if we wish to maintain at least the topical index, then we need a way for a bot to be able to pick the user category noms out of the crowd. That's apparently done either with a switch or a diffeent template.
I think I'd prefer the switch, especially if it makes it easier to update bots/scripts/etc. - jc37 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then, question. Since we merged CFD and UCFD, we're for all intents and purposes saying they are the same. A category is a category is a category. So why can't Rick's bot just archive the discussions with that thought in mind? Archive everything as if it's just a category (presumably the bot already does CFD) and ignore the topic of the category. That way no changes need to be made. --Kbdank71 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If it was the same, we probably wouldn't require a separate set of guidelines. For one thing, there's quite a bit more ownership (in the sense of personalising the categories) than what is typically found in a typical CfD. And so we've found in the past that it's been a boon to reduce disruption to list past discussions. For one thing, it helps indicate to those in favour of the category that it's nothing personal, and usually just a situation of overcat. (Note that even that guidelines links to past UCFD discussions.) And since I am a firm believer in WP:CCC (as others are too, I would think), noting new discussions would seem to be important. Hence the topical index.
As I noted at Rick Block's talk page, we can probably let the regular UCFD archives go inactive, supplementing them merely with links to the discussions rather than needing to copy the actual discussions there as we have in the past. He said that adding links to an existing page should be easily doable. So I'm just waiting on his response (I'm guessing he's working on updating the bot before he answers...) - jc37 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I created {{ucfd top}} because, from the discussions I looked at before I performed the merge, I thought it would be best to have a visible distinction between usercat discussions and regular cat discussions. However, I'm not married to that idea; if it doesn't work with the current scripts/bots, feel free to modify what I've done to fit.--Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

UCFD archiving

I thought the consensus from before was to copy closed UCFD's to the monthly log pages, i.e. Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/April 2009. I've just done that for April 5th, but I'd like to either a) remind closers to do the copying when they perform the close or, if that's not acceptable to other closers, to b) come to a consensus about how to properly archive these if no one else is willing to do it manually.--Aervanath (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm for plan b, in that we just archive them with the CFD discussions on the same page. If we're discussing them both on the same page, there is no reason why that can't serve as the archive for both as well. Keep it simple. --Kbdank71 16:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, keeping them with the others makes it very difficult to maintain the user cat topical index. Unless we have them "dual archived", meaning the UCFDs can stay with the original page and is copied over to the user category archive, which I wouldn't have a problem with. VegaDark (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
See User talk:Rick Block.
He's apparently having bot issues atm, though.
Essentially, the idea is to leave the discussions where they are (for context, and, for that matter, ease of use), and merely place a link in the UCFD archives, and on the /Unsorted sub-page of the topical index.
Does anyone have any issues with that? - jc37 23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as its consistently done, and everyone else agrees, I have no problems with it.--Aervanath (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD C1

In case anyone wants to give their opinion on how to figure out how long a category has been empty in regards to CSD C1. --Kbdank71 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User category

I noticed a category that seems to be for use by a single user. Surprisingly, I can't see any precise policy or instructions on handling this type of category, so I'm posting here so someone with a clue can work out if any action is required. The category is Category:Where Zheliel2 signed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That particular case fell under WP:CSD#G2, "editing tests", so I deleted it. Categories similar to that can usually just be tagged with {{db-test}} and de-populated quickly.--Aervanath (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh Lord of Bad Help

Hi,
Textline 1 of the page says: On this page, deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed.. No, it is described. And why use 'Namespace' here? Suggest replace: "On this page, deletion, merging, and renaming of Wikipedia categories is described." Thank you, Lord ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Extension to seven days

Given that Afd has been extended to seven days (see Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days) does anyone object to lengthening the term here to seven days, due to the same reasons?--Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What were the reasons? For the vast majority of CfD discussions, I don't see much discussion after 3 or 4 days, let alone after 6 or 7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, to quote the summary of the discussion, "to gather more opinions and because some people can only access Wikipedia on weekends." I think you're right that most CFDs don't last much beyond 3 or 4 days. However, some do, and more might if we stopped closing them after five days. The canonical example was given by the editor who started the thread at WT:AFD: an editor can only edit on Saturday and Sunday. On Sunday night, a category he is interested in gets nominated for CFD. Five days from then is Saturday. Depending on when he logs on, he may never find out about the CFD until it's over. CFD being one of the lower-traffic deletion areas, one more opinion can make the difference in a discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable in theory. I don't object, though I don't know if in practice it will in fact have much of an effect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, for consistencies' sake. –xeno talk 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, policy has to come naturally without the need of having to always doublecheck all detail. Therefor consistency is paramount. Agathoclea (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, if AFD takes seven days, so should CFD: some DRVs of category decisions complain that CFD is a "hidden" process anyway, so having a CFD process that is quicker than AFD is difficult to defend. BencherliteTalk 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Mild support. Seems like a reasonable idea for consistency' sake and for the theoretical editor who can only edit once per week. Not sure if it will change much in practice, but I suppose it has little if any cost so it's worth doing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, but certainly not to play "follow the leader". There are so fewer people at CFD that dropping it to five days "for consistency with AFD" made zero sense (nor does it make sense to do this for no other reason than consistency now). Granted, this will not stop people from complaining at DRV, and it won't make a bit of difference for over 90% of the CFD's, but it will allow people who only show up once a week to contribute. --Kbdank71 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. There is no need for any "Rush to Judgment" here. (sdsds - talk) 03:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As there is no opposition, I'll go ahead and make the change. If anyone has a good reason why this shouldn't happen, feel free to revert me. --Kbdank71 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous categories

FYI, there is a discussion about eponymous categories here. --Kbdank71 16:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Using Archive as Means to Squelch Debate

Archiving this "discussion". Nothing positive happening here now, "debate" or otherwise. Time, I think, for everyone to move along before the accusations of bad faith and the like end up becoming more disruptive, and thus possibly getting someone blocked. - jc37 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I find it interesting that debate of a category for which deletion has been suggested has been terminated by archival activities. This is both a pity, and a dirty trick. Can't stand the heat? William R. Buckley (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What discussion is this in reference to? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to guess this, seeing as William edited almost nothing else in the last five days. Is that correct? --Kbdank71 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My but aren't you the perceptive one. It is not true that I have edited only this discussion. See that which occurs just below, on the page you suggest. You are another anonymous editor, aren't you? You have lots of opinions but not the nerve to specify your identity. I suggest that being anonymous editor is the act of a wimp. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My but aren't you not. Note the word "almost", which means "very nearly, all but, slightly short of, not quite, nearly", in other words, the vast majority, but not all, of your edits, were to that discussion. As for the discussion I closed, it had devolved into, as I said in the close, bickering, which did nothing to further whether or not to keep the category. Again, if you want to continue to argue, do it elsewhere. --Kbdank71 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This looks to be a good spot to continue the discussion. Moreover, I was not the only person so disposed to such continuation. Further, you hide from the point I made, in the opening statement of this current discussion. Clearly, you are one who can't stand the heat. Instead, you hide from the point respecting elitism. I suggest you are an elitist. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then, this is where I bow out of the discussion, as I have no interest in the category in question. And you can suggest anything you want, because I have no interest in your opinions either. You might want to watch your civility, though. Good day. --Kbdank71 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
By my reckoning, the posts were more evenly divided between the debates for HBHS and Deep River (?). William R. Buckley (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, elitists are all over the place on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Satirical comment, that is funny 'cause it's true, but is OK because it has been labeled "satirical" On the nature shows, the lion's tactic is to identify and select the weakest antelope for attack and consumption. This is basically the same approach followed at CfD. Once the weak category in a structure has been identified and the pack has pounced and had it deleted, then it's off to the races using the first result as "precedent", demanding that all categories, similar (or not) to the prior case, must be deleted. Which follows the same logic as the lion insisting that all the other antelopes in the herd must willingly succumb to being eaten as the gimpy, undernourished, weakest-link member of the group had already been devoured. While the antelopes wisely choose to ignore the demand, we at CfD are expected to believe that consensus cannot possibly change under any circumstances, and that any results differing from the demanded result are aberrant "anomalies". WRB, welcome back to the neighborhood! Alansohn (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You obfuscate the topic, and hide your identity. I claim there are three types of people: sheep, wolves, warriors. I am, as it appears too is Alansohn, a warrior. Rare we are, warriors. William R. Buckley (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh good—another warrior. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, where do you fit in the hierarchy? William R. Buckley (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Halfling. Can throw rocks well, but have never been able to use a crossbow. High charisma but a relatively low number of hit points. Enjoys honey meads and cheese plates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, low hit points will make you a prime target for roaming wolves and warriors. Although your light weight means you can ride a sheep to safety. --Kbdank71 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How little you know of wolves and warriors. Sheep eat grass; wolves eat sheep. Warriors, eat them both. Wolves are also characterised by hiding in the bushes, a cowardly act taken by neither sheep nor warrior. Thank you so much for identifying your membership in the wolf class. William R. Buckley (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, you're going to eat me? I guess my time here is limited. Darn. Can I call you Wolfeater, then? Great! Look, Wolfeater, I have to go now, I mean, playing D&D with you here has been entertaining, but there is some actual work that needs to be done. --Kbdank71 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I simply note that you are a child, hiding in the bushes, ready to pounce, and have no redeeming qualities, particularly as a Wikipedian, Keyboard Dank. The last time I played D&D was about 25 years ago. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I requested the definition, as others dislike the notion that elitism is defined by its result, not its justification. I still await the answer. I claim that elitists hide their elitism, and hide from it. Glad to be back. As for bigots, at least they are open about their prejudice. William R. Buckley (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New speedy rename criterion

If a parent article is moved with clear consensus, it should only be understood that the categories be renamed to match. For instance, John Whatever's article goes through requested moves and is moved with a clear consensus to John Q. Whatever, then "Category:John Whatever albums/songs" would need to be moved as well. The category rename is clearly non-controversial, so why drag it through CFD if it's clearly not going to be contested? Therefore, I propose a new criterion for speedy renaming that is phrased something like this:

"Categories that need to be renamed to match a recently-renamed parent article, only in cases where the parent article has been moved through a consensus formed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This does not apply for any other cases of parent articles being renamed."

Of course, there might be a couple bugs to work out in this criterion, but that's basically what I'm going for — only speedy rename to match parent article if the parent article was moved after an RM consensus. This might help trim the huge CFD backlog, at least a tiny bit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cough, choke. Maybe when WP:RM decides to follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and creates unambiguous titles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this would provide enough benefit for the potential pain it would inflict. How many of these are there really that are processed daily at CfD? Not many. But let me count the ways this could be "abused" or misunderstood. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have consensus here as well (because consensus at RM doesn't always mean the same consensus will appear here). Sometimes the category is different than the article for good reason. Plus, wouldn't the parent article of Category:John Whatever albums be John Whatever albums? Not John Whatever. Unless you want the new speedy criterion to include all categories that deal in any way with John Whatever. In which case I'd have to say absolutely not. --Kbdank71 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If more consensus is needed, is CFD re-list automatic or requested?

I proposed some pretty sweeping changes within Category:Musical instruments, but did so at the end of the GMT day and got no input at all. For something that big that got no agree/disagree, will the admins automatically re-list it on a new day, or should I delete it from the 5 May CFD and move it to a new day, or do I request a re-list, or what? Here are the proposals in question:

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to wait for someone to close it. The admins look at these and try and determine the best course of action from the comments. Relisting is one of those options. If there is a consensus, they should take action based on that. If there is no consensus, it should be closed as no consensus or relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll also note, that the discussions for May 5 should remain open for another 42 hours or so. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion needed

I noticed that quite often living persons has categories as such "Christian communists " "Communist Party of the Soviet Union members" etc, while in fact such people there were in the past associated with communists, like article Algirdas Brazauskas. Perhaps those categories at least should have word former ? Any suggestions? M.K. (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia categories do not necessarily describe people's current status: many under the Category:Sportspeople are no longer sportspeople (i.e. they are retired). In my opinion, the "former" modifier makes sense only if the transition itself is notable (see e.g. Category:People by former religion). GregorB (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Help!

WikiProject Orphans and foundlings has been renamed Wikipedia: WikiProject: Orphaned, abandoned and removed children. I started an orphans and foundlings category page here and need some help to change this to Category: Orphaned, abandoned and removed children. Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a potential category discussed before I actually make it?

I've thought of a category that seems worthy of being created, but there are very good reasons against having it, not the least of which is previous deletion of similar categories. Should I make the category and list it here? That seems a little...strange. But waiting for someone else to find it and (probably) list it here seems almost dishonest.

The category I've thought of is Athletes with diabetes. This doesn't seem to have existed before, but Category:People with diabetes and Category:Diabetics were both deleted previously. I think in the case of athletes, the disease becomes a defining characteristic (Adam Morrison, Brandon Morrow, and Jay Cutler (American football), just off the top of my head, are very well-known as diabetics and there have been stories in print and TV media about their stringent diabetes management regiments), but I can absolutely see why others wouldn't think so. Nosleep break my slumber 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look here, you can see that Category:People with diabetes was unanimously voted for deletion. The main argument was that "diabetes is not a defining aspect of what makes a person notable". The same will be true in the category you propose to create. I'm afraid it won't be longlived and I advice against it. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

non-articles and WP:CSD#C1

There are a number of cats currently at Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion that start with the word "non-article". We're having a discussion about whether these qualify for speedy deletion here. If they otherwise qualify, then how do I check to see if they were empty 4 days ago? - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories starting with "non-article", IMO, are just as speedy deletable as any others under C1. Someone requested they be excluded from the DBR report because (I assume?) they felt these types of categories met the "Categories that are occasionally empty by their nature" exception, although I wouldn't agree. I personally don't like deleting these types of categories, mainly because of the higher odds of complaints on my talk page, but I definitely think these "non-article" categories aren't the types of categories that should be exempt due to the "empty by their nature" exception and I would support any admin who deleted them as C1. I've mentioned to MZMcBride before that a list of all the filtered out categories on a seperate page would be nice for this report, you may want to officially request it at WT:DBR so that it is easier to verify that such categories have been empty for 4+ days. VegaDark (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Inform editors please

I just noticed Category:Max Schreck disappear with a delete log summary of "per 2009 MAY 7 CfD". At that CfD link I see it was nominated on 7 May 2009. I did not see any message on my talk page about this. Shouldn't the editors involved be notified first so that more input could be obtained? I am not sure I agree with the deletion in this case, but I would be concerned even if I agreed. Editors may have other suggestions, rename, cleanup, mergeup, clarify inclusion criteria and so forth, but if they are not notified ... 84user (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have now recreated the deleted category and reverted the Cydebot moves. 84user (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should just tell me not to bother? Ok, the category just got deleted again. The reason is "(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)". My point is there was no sufficient discussion. It looked like a rogue bot, in all seriousness, or a process gone wrong. However, if this is now the accepted policy (to nominate stuff for discussion without telling people) please tell me and I will not bring this up again. 84user (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who closed the discussion. The category was appropriately tagged with a CfD template, as is required, and the discussion was open for comment for 13 days (!). If you care about a particular category you should place it on your watchlist. When the template for deletion is added to the category, you will thereby be "notified" when it pops up on your recent-changes watchlist. Nominators may choose to notify the creator when they nominate a category for deletion, but it is not currently required and not doing so doesn't invalidate the discussion.
I don't believe that the fact that you disagree with a discussion result is a good reason for you to decide to re-create the category. WP:DRV is available if you disagree with deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've just returned here after posting a request for suggestions on possible renaming on the talk pages of the users in the discussion. As to caring, it was on my watchlist, only that is now so large I only see about 5% of what notice everything. I have just learnt to select Namespace:Category so I should be happier in future. I realise there's a balance between efficiency and avoiding spamming user talk pages. I just got caught by surprise.

But please note that I really did not see the discussion. It could have remained open for 100 days and I still wouldn't have seen it. Finally thanks for the link to WP:DRV, that is what I was looking for, but I would rather just discuss it on your talk page for now. Believe it or not, it is not straightforward to find and follow these things. 84user (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, we will discuss at my talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

More out of process category renames

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since Debresser has stated that there will be no more category changes without discussion (I'm assuming that means at CFD), there's no need to continue this here.--Aervanath (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is still at it, changing categories out-of-process without consensus. He not only should know better, he's already participated in the earlier complaints. Perhaps I'm more irritated by these as I'm the one that started some of these particular maintenance categories, so they showed up on my watch list. What can be done?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably missing some, where he fails to provide an edit summary:

  1. 2009-05-24T00:03:00 Template:Failed verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
  2. 2009-05-24T00:08:47 Template:Original research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=>from and simplify) (top)
  3. 2009-05-24T00:13:13 Template:Or (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
  4. 2009-05-24T20:44:21 Template:Expand-section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  5. 2009-05-24T21:09:55 Template:Article issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since => from)
  6. 2009-05-24T22:15:51 Template:Mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from) (top)
  7. 2009-05-24T22:18:34 Template:Mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from : rmeover the category parameter: not likely to be used in article space.) (top)
  8. 2009-05-24T22:24:33 Template:Mergefrom-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (clean up using AWB) (top)
  9. 2009-05-24T22:25:04 Template:Merge JRRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from using AWB) (top)
  10. 2009-05-24T22:25:42 Template:Merge FJC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  11. 2009-05-24T22:26:38 Template:Merge-school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  12. 2009-05-24T22:27:07 Template:Portalmerge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  13. 2009-05-24T22:27:23 Template:NorthAmMergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  14. 2009-05-24T22:27:40 Template:Multiplemergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  15. 2009-05-24T22:28:56 Template:Merging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  16. 2009-05-24T22:29:15 Template:Mergetomultiple-with (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  17. 2009-05-24T22:30:32 Template:Mergeto2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
  18. 2009-05-24T22:30:41 Template:Mergeto-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  19. 2009-05-24T22:30:55 Template:Mergesections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  20. 2009-05-24T22:31:05 Template:Mergesection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  21. 2009-05-24T22:32:35 Template:Mergefrom-category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  22. 2009-05-24T22:32:55 Template:Merge-multiple-to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  23. 2009-05-24T22:33:00 Template:Merge-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  24. 2009-05-24T22:33:06 Template:Merge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  25. 2009-05-24T22:33:19 Template:Afd-mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  26. 2009-05-24T22:33:25 Template:Afd-mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
  27. 2009-05-24T22:34:57 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  28. 2009-05-24T22:35:22 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
  29. 2009-05-24T22:36:25 Template:Expert-subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
  30. 2009-05-24T22:48:35 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from. Stop self include.)
  31. 2009-05-24T22:49:52 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the first 3 you noted, as they have incorrect grammar after the change. Please fix any other obvouse errors. "From" is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It looks like this has been ongoing under the radar for some time. In several cases, he's exploiting something he added to Template:Fix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to switch "since" to "from". "Since" is better grammar in most cases — passage of time, rather than distance. An even better choice might be "as of". But for category sorting purposes, incorporating yyyy-mm works best (not MonthName Year), as we do here!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted all the changes you noted, although I may have reverted a few sensible changes. I had network problems, causing my connection to revert to dialup for a few minutes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you again reverting actions of another admin without good reason. All 42 mainenance templates are at "from", not "since". Debresser (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As to whether "from " or "since" is better, that is controversial. That is no reason to undo good edits. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For category sorting purposes it uses yyyy-mm. I love how people jump in and mess upsomethign they don't understand and haven't even bothered to examine. From is not wrong either... it means "with the source or provenance of" in this case. Nor is it hard to understand. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55 25 May 2009 (UTC).
Oh yes, the problem with "since", also minor, is that it could be interpreted to be those whre the tagging has occurred since July 2008, those that have been tagged continuously since July 2008 and for an unknown period beforehand , as well as its intended meanings. Indeed it was partly this looseness of meaning that I (wrongly) chose "since" in the first place for these families, expecting otherwise the obsessives to complain that first category in each family contained a number of older tags. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 25 May 2009 (UTC).
Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"From" is still grammatically wrong. Perhaps "on" would be more appropriate, although the intention was that "since" would be correct except for inappropriate removals and creation of the tags. In any case, I reverted my changes to avoid further disruption. However, the wording of the text and names of the categories should have been discussed before the changes were made. (And not only at WP:VP....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why you insist on not following WP:CFD. Clearly you should know that making changes outside of established policy is wrong. Using a bot to assist in this is doubly bad. When the first reported case happened and was identified, WP:AGF was correctly applied. But what about now? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this still going on?

It's more straighforward than this. WP:BRD. Someone made a bold change. was reverted, now it's time for a consensual discussion. And oh look, WP:CFD is right around the corner. Imagine, a process set up just for such discussions...

So please just make a nomination and please stop with the disruption.

I really have no opinion on the changes, but this controversy really is looking like several tempests in a teapot... - jc37 05:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jc. Continually insisting your way is right when so many others disagree might just point to a problem with you, not them. There are established ways to deal with disagreements, use them. --Kbdank71 20:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No more categories will be changed without discussion. At the moment there is technical work on templates, that will allow for easy changes if consensus will so rule. Recommend patience. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It would have been simpler if the template and category name changes were reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Simpler is not better. You'll see the advantages soon enough. If you're willing to stop grudging. Debresser (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft RfC

Following discussion at WT:CAT#Eponymous cats, I've begun drafting an RfC to determine what to do about articles with eponymous categories (e.g. should France be only in Category:France or in its natural categories as well). Input very welcome at Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC.--Kotniski (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD categories renamed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Debresser (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
Continues at #More out of process category renames.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss a discussion or have most of the CfD categories been renamed out of process? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just popping in to make the same plaint.
  • With careless spelling mistakes the first time:
    • "Categoried for deltion from "
    • "Categories for deletion from "
  • Doesn't Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) (and his SmackBot (talk · contribs)) understand these are categories for discussion?
  • The date was changed from yyyy-mm to Month ####.
  • How useless! Can they be changed back quickly? And his bot suspended for misuse (not an approved task)?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's probably because the parent is Category:Categories for deletion and has been around since 2004. I'm all for consistency, but shouldn't the parent have been renamed, not the children, esp considering what CFD stands for? --Kbdank71 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The parent was renamed. The relevant tree is:
As they are deleted, I cannot see where the old categories were placed. Somebody should restore them!
  • Category:CfD 2009-04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    "2009-05-20T01:42:50 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:CfD 2009-04" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, deleting page per result of AfD discussion. using TW)"
    • What AfD? There's no link to any AfD (or otherwise) discussion!
  • Category:CfD 2009-05 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    2009-05-20T02:46:59 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:CfD 2009-05" ‎ (C1: Empty category)
    • Sure it was, after he improperly changed the templates without discussion!
The replacement dated categories were added to the wrong part of the tree by Debresser (talk · contribs) yesterday:
And he heavily altered the /doc for the templates today:
Why? And who the heck is Debresser (talk · contribs)? I don't see a lot of contributions here!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the discussion was here. I have expressed my displeasure there with the violation of process and said I will not comment there since that is not the correct forum for a change like this. I'll add a pointer there to this discussion. I'm also strongly tempted to revert all of the template changes and at a minimum rename using our bots, the May category! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My goodness, that's not just CfD categories, that was a wholesale violation of category renaming in general! At Village pump (miscellaneous)?!?! Farmbrough should have known better, after all these years.... Please rename back. I can help later today, am tied up at the moment.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see now. I agree with changing these back. The Category:CFD YYYY-MM format worked fine. It's not like anyone who worked cleaning those out were confused and needed to have them changed. --Kbdank71 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The templates and categories were fixed. We just need a bot to move things back. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, categories need to be undeleted, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Did I miss some? I thought I undeleted them already? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
And so that everyone knows. We now have the original ones that were restored, the replacement ones that were added without a proper discussion and a new set of by month categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! My earlier comment was posted about 3 minutes before you restored the categories. Just the usual cross-talk during a hectic disturbance.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Took a bit of effort, but all the nominations should be back in the original categories.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
With the help of an admin reverting actions of other admins in the middle of discussion. Anyway, I hope you'll all support the nomination for renaming to a more normal name, as soon as Rich will get to it. In the mean time, enjoy the triumph of narrowmindedness over progress. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reported this reverting in the middle of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed and urge all those involved to stop at once. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Closed, Resolved, nothing to see there, move along.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the correct procedures here. I proposed this at the Village Pump (link above) and all agreed, including some experienced editors. So there was discussion, and consensus, before anybody started doing anything.

Apart from that, as you see, this is just working on the "housestyle" of Wikipedia, while absolutely no changes are made to the workings of these categories and templates. And for sure no heavily altering, as all can see. So I really can't see what the heat is about. Anyway, let's see what Rich will have to say. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May I ask one small question, please. Is there something that is not working? I mean, apart from people having to spend a minute looking for a renamed category? I think all is working just fine. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good thing because it does away with the cryptically named categories. And while those that work regularly on them may know that a category called CfD which is a sub category of "Categories for deletion" is a actually about categories for discussion, it is by no means obvious, and without Debresser's initiative, which I applaud, this breakage in the category tree would have carried on. It is simplicity itself to move these dated cats to be sub-cast of Cats for discussion, and to rename them appropriately. Obfuscated names are fine for cliques, but they don't help the project as a whole. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18 20 May 2009 (UTC).
And who the heck is Debresser He's an editor who has been doing various things to improve Wikipedia.
Why don't we all agree that (a) there should have been some discussion on this page, and was not, and Debresser now knows that, and will post accordingly in the future; (b) reverting all the changes for not following process is to give process an importance far greater than it deserves; per WP:IAR, the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy; and (c) what was done did improve things; the question now is what further changes are needed to improve matters. That may mean setting some things back to the way they were, but that needs to be justified by something other than "that's what we were used to". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
But the people that actually use these were never asked or notified or consulted before these wholesale changes were made out of process. If it was not broken it did not need to be changed. It especially should not have been driven by a regular editor with bogus reasons on the edits creating the changes. To suggest that this was not controversial is completely without any support. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so you weren't asked. I hope you understand nobody did that on purpose. It seemed very trivial. An obvious, uncontroversial, standarisation. And , frankly, don't you agree it is a great idea? Have a look at this list. {{CfD 2009-04}} stood out there like a pimple on Miss America's nose among 42 categories of one and the same standarised dateformat. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not a great idea. Another of Farmbrough's lame "standardization" attempts — as if his AWB "fixes" weren't bad enough already. WTF was {{WMCSBM3}}?!?! I wonder what the other working groups are saying?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As usual you fail WP:CIVIL. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 21 May 2009 (UTC).
No, it's not a great idea. If you would actually explain why the changes were not good, you might get some agreement and support from those of us who think the changes had at least some merit. Continuing to simply say "bad idea" without explaining isn't helpful, at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually nobody else complained at all. Since it is really all very simple edits, working on a uniform and logical housestyle, which is a way of making Wikipedia more easily understandable and accessable. Would you perhaps care to join me? There are a few more tedious but important housekeeping jobs that are crying out for an extra hand. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving to "Categories for discussion from... " in place of the current name(s). This will be easy enough and should provide both clarity and consistency. Rich Farmbrough, 17:47 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Works for me. Was "current name(s)" an attempt at humor? :) Debresser (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Only an attempt? Oh.. very well then. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01 21 May 2009 (UTC).
Feel free to make the nomination. Don't forget to nominate both old category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid WAS is correct. This change was not discussed, and should not have been made without discussion. (And I'd still object to "from" if it were discussed, as I noted below. It's just wrong, particularly in a category name. "From a nomination in", perhaps. Perhaps "since" for intent, or "on/in" for accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I now see that my mistake was mainly using the word "deletion" in stead of "discussion". Which was indeed a mistake, rooted in inexperience. I will nominate the one category left for speedy. While reading this section again, I feel that the spelling out of "CfD" as "Categories for deletion" and changing the dateformat from "YYYY-MM" to "Monthname Year", were not what made the resistance here so strong. I will await User:Rich Farmbrough or someone else nominate the rename. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restore two template process like AfD+AfDM

The recent category renaming (and bot renaming in existing subst'd templates) reminds me that wouldn't be a problem had we retained the two step process that I'd setup (see Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Archive 7#cfd1, cfm1, cfr1). Changing the Cf(D,M,R) templates would have put the categories back in place automatically.

That is, the first subst would create a template, rather than a huge splash of wikitext, just as {{subst:afd}} creates {{AfDM}}. When I was doing {{cfd1}} et alia, we wanted the regular {{cfd}} to continue to work as usual with the old directory structure, so the compromise was our CfDM was merely CfD (not subst'd in those days).

As I was trying to find out what had changed in 3 years, I see that there was a recent discussion (in the wrong place) at Template talk:Cfd#Remove need for subst. That also proposed (and created) a {{CfDM}}. Broken, but the same idea.

Anyway, I don't understand what was bad about the process? I'd proposed that we could change underlying directory names at 2007 January (using one of the #if functions comparison against 2006).

Instead, some folks decided to subst everything, including {{cfdend}} and {{cfdresult}}, formerly prohibited from subst'ing. Unfortunately, the person subst'ing forgot to add <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> to the parser functions, so the output is a mess!

Anyway, I'm agreeing with December's discussion that we reinstate the two template process. If folks prefer names like {{cfd}} and {{CfDX}} (we shouldn't use "M", as that would make the confusing {{CfMM}} for merging), that's fine.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to try this out for one version (like cfm maybe) and see what it does? As long as it is a direct change to the current template, it could be OK, assuming I understand what you are proposing. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ready. Restored functionality of {{Cfm1}}. Named the counterpart {{Cfm nomination}}, as unlikely to be mistakenly typed. My previous suggestion {{CfDX}} might be confusing, as AfD also uses {{afdx}}. Better safe than sorry. I've minimally tested it, but I'm sure there will be other suggestions before doing the same for cfd, cfr, etc.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Two more obscure ones completed and tested:
Note that the old template names redirect, and there are no changes needed to user's habits. These two are now in production.
Cfm1 awaits your approval. If approved, the sequence for cfm1 deployment is more involved, as it's protected, so I did a cut and paste move. That will need to be fixed as follows:
  1. unprotect {{Cfm}}.
  2. delete {{Cfm nomination}}.
  3. move {{Cfm}} to {{Cfm nomination}}, but not its Talk, with no redirect.
  4. undelete {{Cfm nomination}} history.
  5. restore my last edit on top (mostly usual cut and paste repair process).
  6. new {{cfm}} #REDIRECT Template:Cfm1.
  7. move Template talk:Cfm to Template talk:Cfm1 over (my old 2006) redirect (leaving usual redirect), or I can do that later.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Any objections to making this change? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have none. Anybody else?--Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

CFD umbrella nomination help

I have nominated Category:Number-one singles in Australia for deletion due to the results of a CFD over number-one albums (once in 2006 and one just recently). I have no qualms over the decision/consensus but am seeking consistency between how songs and albums are categorized/listed, which is why I attempted to recreate the number-one albums category to renew the discussion. For this reason as well, I would like to nominate each "Number-one singles by country" category, and most of their sub-categories (except "Lists of" cats.), and add to the umbrella nomination. Due to the number of these categories, I am requesting help to put them under the same umbrella. Thank you. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella nominations broken

I've done a few umbrella nominations lately, and found that {{cfd2}} seems to work properly on the initial nomination, but {{cfr2}} ignores the supplied section heading. Anybody remember how/why that changed?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Found it.

  • 2007-01-05T01:47:07 CBDunkerson decided to change the 3rd parameter into an alternative for text= (nope, that doesn't work properly).
  • Certainly, that's not the copy and paste format generated by {{cfr}} itself.

Same problem with {{cfm2}}.

  • 2007-06-05 Azatoth copied the mistake (updating the templates so they produce simlar output) [sic].
  • Again, that's not the copy and paste format generated by {{cfm}} itself.

Happily, {{cfd2}} currently works because:

  • 2007-06-05 Azatoth copied the mistake there, too, but the bad 3rd parameter isn't used (it is ignored).
  • 2007-06-15 BrownHairedGirl fixed the section header mistake.

I'd fix them, but they're protected. (heavy sigh)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Found complaints in the archives as far back as 2007 March 7, but no responses (or fixes).

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Copy the templates to sandboxes, make the needed fixes, and then place the {{editprotected}} template on their talkpages with links to the sandboxes. That way an admin can just copy-paste the fix right onto the template for you.--Aervanath (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous categories RFC live

The RfC mentioned above, on eponymous categories and what to do about them, is now live. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC and comment at that talk page. Thanks. Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be a major change from current policy. It would make things very difficult for categorization discussions, as it would remove the common check for a main article — under the most prominent (#1 and #2) of proposals, the main article would no longer be found in its category of the same name. IMnsHO, a very bad idea.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding - that isn't actually the proposal at all (my fault for not making it clearer when drafting). See the RfC page for more explanation.--Kotniski (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Now it may be worse! You've forgotten that every category should have a main article.
  1. Under option #1, the main article will always be in both its own category and its parent.
  2. Under option #2, each category with a main article will add another category to its parent; the main article will be in the parent, and the category itself moved to its parent "PAGENAME categories". That's category duplication on a massive scale. Every time we rename here, we'll have to rename 2 categories instead of 1....
  3. Only option #3 (current practice) makes any sense at all!
Folks here should speak up now, or forever hold their peace.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion continues at the RfC page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Span

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_21#Writers_by_language

Three CFD's were combined, but the links in the tagged categories were not corrected to point to the umbrella nomination. CharlotteWebb used the span tag to catch the incoming links and make sure people got to the right discussion. I'm not sure if this is something we can use, but I think it's a great idea. --Kbdank71 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing this a lot lately on guidelines, for section #shortcuts. For umbrella nominations, it turns out to work properly added just before the section header (not after). Probably best used for fixing up problem nominations, rather than part of the regular process.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes in nomination

There is a note on the project page stating in relation with speedy renaming and merging "If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria". As of late I have noticed one nominator who has repeatedly changed his nominations and/or added other related categories to his nominations. Often this makes it impossible to know whether the opinions of commenting editors relate to the current proposal.

I propose to make the above note a little stronger "If the nominator decides to change a nomination, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one (as long as it still meets the speedy criteria)", and add a note with the same content to the project page in relation with non-speedy nominations as well. Apart from that I think changes in the nomination (apart form typos) should be sufficient reason for immediate administrative closure of the nomination. What are your opinions? Debresser (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD working categories

Moved here, as somebody doesn't understand the meaning of "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section."
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is now a nomination for rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cydebot screwed the pooch on Alaska Natives

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#American people and topics required that the moves take place in sequence:

Looking at the history of John Baker (musher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (in time sequence order):

  • 2009-06-03 19:17:54 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m (3,842 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Alaska Native people to Alaska Natives per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16.)
  • 2009-06-03 20:17:14 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m (3,841 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Alaska Natives to Alaska Native per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16.) (undo)

WRONG ORDER!

Now, Kbdank71 deleted Category:Alaska Natives as empty. How do we put back the material?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For convenience: Cydebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
Ah... now I get it... Mass rollback and do it over, I guess... –xenotalk 02:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that better? –xenotalk 02:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! Looks OK to me! Could you please explain how you did it so cleanly, so I'll know what to do for the future?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure...As you pointed out, Cydebot just went a step too far on the "...people" articles, so I just identified the block of contribs for those 23 "steps too far" (using an offset in the contrib window based on the date/timestamp you provided, i.e. [5]) and used tabbed browsing to open up the history window for each article, then undid the most recent edit to step it back to "Alaska Natives". –xenotalk 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, clever. I remember reading on the -tech list some time ago about the new &offset=yyyymmdd feature, but this is the first I've seen it in practice. And I see that you're an administrator, so you could undelete the page history. Probably should apply eventually myself. Thanks again!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hate to throw a human under the bus when it's just easier to blame the bot, but Cydebot did nothing wrong on this. The problem was caused by Vegaswikian with this edit. Vegas correctly added a NOBOTS tag to the Category:Alaska Native people to Category:Alaska Natives line, but then added the same line below without the NOBOTS tag. So the first run through, Cydebot properly moves articles from Category:Alaska Natives to Category:Alaska Native, but then immediately moves Category:Alaska Native people to Category:Alaska Natives. In that run, John Baker (musher) gets moved from Alaska Native people to Alaska Natives. The next hour when Cydebot runs again, it goes to again rename Category:Alaska Natives to Category:Alaska Native, and finding John Baker (musher) there, moves it to Alaska Native. Cydebot did exactly what it was supposed to. --Kbdank71 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. A combination of human error, and Cydebot not keeping state about what it's already completed, doing the same category a second time an hour later. Ah, well, thankfully it was reversible, and only 23 entries....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And now, a perfectly good bus has damage to its undercarriage. Thanks a lot, Kdbank ;p –xenotalk 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I double checked that to make sure that I had it right! Sorry for the mess, but at least it is cleared up now. At least I don't have to spend time in deletion review! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cat & List of... duplicates

If a category and a "List of..." page effectively duplicate each other, should the category be listed here? - eg Category:Ghost ships & List of ghost ships. Thanks. 58.8.7.135 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

quite often its fine to have a list and a category that duplicate each other, if that's what you mean? Whats bad is a category that duplicates another or a list that duplicates another, lists and categories have different functions so its not a real problem to have two that appear the same, I hope that answers your question, if not just ask again, thanks! :) All the best SpitfireTally-ho! 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks! 58.8.7.135 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem SpitfireTally-ho! 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I have started 2 new discussions in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), and there are three more active discussions there (one is only a redirect to the actual discussion). Since that page is not frequented by a high number of editors, which tends to make for limited discussion hence limited consensus, I decided to post a notification here. Debresser (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we had a conflict over there, the page has been protected. So please give your input. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor bypassing CfD

Steam5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on a roll over the last 36 hours or so, tagging categories for speedy deletion and changing category links without paying any heed to the guidelines. Most recently, he/she tagged Category:Bell Canada Enterprises with {{db-c2}}, even though it seems clear to me that renaming "Bell Canada Enterprises" to "Bell Canada" does not fall within the speedy renaming guidelines; and, as far as I can tell, this proposed renaming was never listed on WP:CFD at all. The user simply went ahead and manually changed category links in all articles that used to be in Category:Bell Canada Enterprises. I left two messages on this user's talk page yesterday; he/she deleted each of them without responding, and continued on his/her campaign. Before I raise this on WP:ANI and complain more officially about this user's conduct, I wanted to raise it here and make sure that I am not the one who is out of line. If I am mistaken in my understanding of the process, please let me know and I will back off. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This user has managed to get quite a few categories speedy deleted. Most, if not all of them, probably should be restored. Are there that many administrators who don't understand the speedy deletion criteria for categories? *sigh* The Bell Canada category is a blatant example of an editor avoiding CFD by manually renaming a category. Not cool. - Eureka Lott 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've already re-create the category Category:Bell Canada to match the main article Bell Canada so I type the category Category:Bell Canada on the main article to type a symbol and a space (| ]]) that's the main article is located. Steam5 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
And did you do that after a discussion at CfD? Or did you simply empty Category:Bell Canada Enterprises and populate Category:Bell Canada? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I empty a category Category:Bell Canada Enterprises to avoid Cfd and some of the users maybe oppose the rename at CfD and that would upset me. But I will made the category redirect from Category:Bell Canada Enterprises for the populated Category:Bell Canada. But that category is to match the main article. Steam5 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that you are missing the point. The problem is that you should not be moving or renaming and causing categories to be deleted outside of the formal process. The fact that your statement seems to say that you did this specifically to avoid a discussion seems to make your actions more egregious and troublesome. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait a Minute, can you help me where can I read the category guidelines, In order not to get any troublesome and not to get blocked. And I will put the category redirect for the Category:Bell Canada Enterprises to Category:Bell Canada. Note Bell Canada Enterprises is the old name then it changes it's name to Bell Canada. And I apologize and it will never happen again. Steam5 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look back at the page this discussion is associated with, you will find that Wikipedia:Category deletion policy is where you will find the policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've already read the guidelines and I will remember the deleted guidelines. And I hope I'm not going to get any troublesome and to get blocked. And maybe I will put the category redirect to Category:Bell Canada Enterprises. And once again I apologize on making a different category and it will never happen again. Steam5 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Steam5, I did not post here to get you into trouble. I just wanted you to understand that we have a process for changing category names, and to get you to follow that process. I thank you for responding here and for understanding our concern. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You're Welcome, and I will not think about a different category to be changed. I will have to do better in the days ahead. Steam5 (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-populating categories

Category:Fast Folk artists was previously deleted, but was then relisted at CFD after a deletion review. The CFD resulted in keeping the category (see the CFD); however, the category is still empty. I'm not sure how to go about re-populating it automatically, since I'm not too familiar with the technical aspects. Is CydeBot the only bot that does this? If there are other bots, how do you figure out which one it was? And then, can the bot be easily programmed to undo it's edits removing the articles from the category, or is that something that interested editors have to do manually? I'm asking on behalf of an editor who posted to my talk page, thinking that I would know because I closed the latest CFD. (Gosh, thinking that an admin actually knows something; boy, does he have a lot to learn!) Thanks in advance for educating me, --Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The best strategy I know is to look at a page you know was in the category before, figure out who depopulated it, and run through that editor's "contributions" from that period. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at who deleted it. If it was Cydebot, it is most likely him that did the emptying. If it was me, then it was either me (via AWB) or my bot User:Kbdankbot. I think Cydebot can automagically undo his edits. I have to do mine and my bot's manually. I think most other people use Cydebot for emptying as well (citation needed for that, of course). --Kbdank71 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. It appears it was Cydebot. I've put a request for help on Cyde's talk page. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

oldcfdmulti?

Do you folks think there's a need for a {{oldcfdmulti}} template? The page exists, but just as a redirect to {{oldafdmulti}}, which doesn't allow for links to CFD archives. I just combined the four old discussion templates in use at Category talk:Fast Folk artists, but I used {{multidel}}, because I'm unaware of another template that would work. It functions, but it lacks the sophistication of {{oldafdmulti}}. Is there a better way to list multiple deletion discussions on category talk pages? - Eureka Lott 04:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't use oldcfdmulti myself, I just keep adding new {{Cfd result}}s under the old ones. No problem with getting rid of the redirect. I like multidel very much, and I don't know of anything else that accomplishes that. I think I'll start using it. --Kbdank71 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't use oldcfdmulti, because it doesn't exist. :) I was wondering if there would be much benefit or demand for creating it. - Eureka Lott
I don't think there are all that many categories that have been through as many discussions as Category:Fast Folk artists, so there's not much demand for it. Might as well make {{oldcfdmulti}} redirect to {{multidel}}.--Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion

There is a deletion backlog at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that I did modify the template to indicate that Speedy C1 should not be user to bypass CfD. So maybe this backlog is the result of administrators taking note of that warning. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've always been a bit wary of deleting these, since I don't know how to verify that the category has actually been empty for the relevant four days. I know this has been discussed at WT:CSD, and I don't remember anybody providing a reliable guide, other than checking on a regular basis. Otherwise you just sort of have to trust the tagger. So, this is one of the areas I don't feel confident in, and with the admin tools you don't want to be operating where you're not on solid ground.--Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you. Even though I participate at CfD and read most of the discussions, I avoid the C1 speedies since I could never be sure that they are there because someone followed the process. It is a big loophole. The only solution I see is to take this to SD for a discussion to remove C1 and replace it with an expanded speedy rename at CfD. That way it would at least have a few people looking at the nominations. If a category is empty, there is no need to delete it on sight. Waiting a few days does no damage. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I usually go to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories if I feel like deleting empty categories. Specifically, I go a the prior update, like this one: [6], that was from at least 4 days ago and start deleting empties from there. It's not fool-proof, but I at least know that what I'm deleting was empty 4 days ago. --Kbdank71 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
But that does not mean that it was emptied following process. That is a big concern in my mind. I have asked a question on this at the talk page for WP:CSD. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not the CFD process, but it does follow the CSD process. Unfortunately, unless you know what article may have been in the category, there is no way to find out. Perhaps we can convince the devs to come up with a solution, like being able to search for articles that were in a particular category or something. --Kbdank71 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There was talk a couple months ago about turning the C1 template into a dated template similar to PROD. It looked like we had consensus to make the change, but it wasn't made. It's still an option worth considering, IMO. - Eureka Lott 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That helps with the 4 days empty, but it does not help with users bypassing CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I think Vegaswikian has a good point: Kbdank71 and EurekaLott both have valid procedures for ensuring that the category has mostly likely been empty for four days. However, I would also be worried about users bypassing CfD. Is there a way to check what, if any, articles have EVER been in a category? I guess you could manually go through previous database dumps, but that would be really laborious and not worth the time. Anyone have any better ideas for ensuring that it hasn't been a victim of a CfD end-run?--Aervanath (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The only solution I have been able to think of is to eliminate C1 from speedy deletion criteria. I have started exploring this option there. If a proposal like mine would get adopted, we would move the categories from speedy deletion to the Speedy section in CfD. While it would not fix the problem, it should alert admins and editors to emptied categories. I will note that I left some notices on the talk page of an admin who has been deleting empty categories, even those being discussed at CfD! Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
How would deprecating C1 solve the problem? I don't see how it would stop people from bypassing CFD by manually renaming categories. The main difference I see is that the original category would remain, and since many of the people doing manual renames are inexperienced, there's a decent chance the old category would wind up as a hard redirect. Also, empty categories are frequently tagged with the {{db}} template instead of of {{db-c1}} (typically with some note explaining why the editor thinks the category is unneeded), and eliminating C1 would not stop that practice. - Eureka Lott 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It would not eliminate all out of process deletions, but it would hopefully reduce them. I don't know how to get around the {{db}} issue, but if we drop C1 and C2 as some have suggested, we could have the CSD guidelines modified to say that {{db}} is not to be used for categories with a pointer to whatever we use to replace it. That should at least put admins on notice that categories don't belong in CSD for any reason. Editors would still tag, but admins would not generally delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not as familiar with C1, as I've been recently active in bringing empty or near empty categories to CfD. And given that there seems to be a (new in late 2008) Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories mentioned by Kbdank71 above, maybe C1 could be eliminated. Certainly, it should be dated! But C2 was vital for keeping down the CfD load even back in the days when that load was small compared to today. And C2 should be dated, too!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about info on category pages

Background: I created {{catdesc}} to help solve the problem of category documentation/description. It was nominated for deletion; no-one but me saw any use for it (not that there were significant numbers wanting it deleted either), so it's now officially being deleted (although there's a deletion review for it). It is nonetheless already transcluded on a lot of pages, and if it is to be deleted, then these transclusions will be converted with a script.

The Question therefore arises: if such conversion takes place, what of the information that this template generates should be kept, and what should be discarded? Obviously the parent categories defined in the template need to be retained, and personally I would have thought the useful information provided for readers would stay too. What about the information on the categorization scheme intended for editors (the bit in the collapsible box) - should it stay or go?

(Please have a look at some of the transclusions from the list linked to above to understand what this is about. See here for some technical discussion. Of course, if you think the template might still be useful - even if not exactly in its present form - then please say so at DRV. A possibility might be to userfy it while further development takes place. Or someone might have a totally new idea on how to solve this problem. But the above Question is the one that needs answering most immediately.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the parent categories need to be kept, I have no opinion on any of the other information. --Kbdank71 14:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Use Undo for each template instance, returning everything to the state before the template. By hand. That should keep Kotniski out of harms way for awhile. Heck, I'd say no other edits allowed until he's done....
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That isn't really an answer - most of the categories were created with the template on it from the start.--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
They don't consist only of the header - they contain pages and subcategories as well.--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pages for discussion

After the recent renaming of Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion we now have a major break in the category tree. Please see that category talkpage Category_talk:Pages_for_discussion for my proposal in relation with this issue. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no (major or minor) "break" in the tree. I have little or no interest in opinions, we deal in facts and process here. Section renamed.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors please contribute to discussion there. More opinions are needed to reach a conclusion. Interested and objective editors will surely notice the major break in the tree I referred to. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about changes for closed discussion

Not sure if this is the right place or not, but the Subclasses of Flower class corvettes discussion closed on 16 June as "rename all". Usually, the changes are made quickly after a close, but I notice that is not the case here. Is there a backlog of changes that need to be made or did this one maybe slip through the cracks? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes there's a lag with the bots. It looks like I listed it properly at WP:CFDW when I closed it, although I've never seen the CFD bots let the backlog go for four days before. Don't worry, it'll get taken care of as soon as the bots get to it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't missed. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed and readded these but the bot is still not processing them. Not sure why. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed them; they should process now. (The bot won't process them unless there is a target category. In this case there were only target articles.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You don't know how many times I looked for the obvious there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Somebody slap me with a fish, please. I can't believe I made such a n00b mistake. :) --Aervanath (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Displeased with changes to Category:Surnames

I only found out about this after the decision was made, but basically despite notable CfD opposition, every single Surname by X Nationality category was deleted, dumping over 14,000 articles into the basic Category:Surnames. I agree that confining surnames by nation-state is a clumsy way to go about it, but dumping over ten thousand articles into a base cat was ludicrous. If you feel that Category:Iranian surnames cultivates a false sense of unity, go ahead and divide it into Category:Baloch surnames, Category:Persian surnames, etc. Now anyone wanting to categorise by culture as opposed to "nation" has to comb thgrough 14,000 articles. In short, I feel this was a ludicrously drastic move pushed by a fringe element of "nationality is a fiction" biased persons, which undid thousands of hours of labour. Yes, "nationality" is a somewhat artificial way to categorise cultural aspects, being that cultures transcend borders, but but hundreds of surnames could be generally agreed to be "Japenese" instead of "Welsh", and compeltely wiping cats rather than sorting was a terribly hasty move. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The CFD has been appealed, and is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_25. Please comment there.--Aervanath (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion - 7/2

Can a few admins look at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion? Looks like someone ran a bot to dump a bunch of entries into here. Looks like some were upmerged as underpopulated. Not sure why others are here, but I don't have the time to dig right now. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Open backlog

In my opinion, may of the discussions that are still open and awaiting closing have consensus. However many of the regular closers have participated in the discussions so they should not really be involved in the close. So if any other admins see this, could you please review the these open discussions and close those with a consensus? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Help request

I've just come across Category:Political corruption and Category:Corruption, and this seems like a big problem of overlap here. The Corruption disambiguation page essentially points at Political corruption - the other senses are more synonyms of other meanings. Certainly looking at the category contents, it's hard to see why not to merge. But how to do this? I've never done this. Help, anyone? Disembrangler (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia:Cfd#How_to_use_this_page; it provides instructions on how to nominate categories for deletion, renaming, or merging. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page)..." I'm asking for help. It's a complex nomination and I've never done even a simple one. Disembrangler (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly that you want to merge Category:Political corruption to Category:Corruption? Or are you trying to do the opposite, merging Category:Corruption to Category:Political corruption? Either way, those would be single merges, not umbrella nominations, so you don't have to worry about the more complex instructions. Or have I misunderstood your intent?--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well this is one of the problems - I'm not entirely sure what to do; I just see a mess that needs cleaning up. Category:Political corruption is currently a subcategory of Category:Corruption, but Category:Corruption overlaps contentwise 100% (I think) with the meaning of "political corruption". I suppose Category:Corruption should be merged into Category:Political corruption, to match the political corruption article. But equally, "political corruption" is probably not the best title for that page anyway - "political corruption" is vague and not normally used and on some definitions would exclude parts of that topic. Maybe corruption should be moved to corruption (disambiguation), and political corruption to corruption, and merge the cats to match? NB I've left a note at talk:political corruption, and pointed here. Disembrangler (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Many articles lie within the scope of Corruption and outside that of Political corruption. Ponzi scheme, Insider trading, Shell (corporation), Securities fraud, Enron scandal and War profiteering are examples of corruption that lie within the field of business, with the latter being more political and such as Whitewater controversy and Sixteen words being more political still. There is far more to the scope of Corruption than merely politics. Moreover, these are excellent categories and obviously many more articles could be listed. My only regret is that I cannot think of a synonym for corruption. Anarchangel (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish inventors

Just a heads up. In doing a speedy close on some of the latest Jewish categories, I noticed that I had actually closed Category:Jewish inventors as a listify a while ago and it is sitting in the manual work queue. However one user took it on themselves to remove the notice from the category which then resulted in the category being renominated for deletion. It might be good if some other editors watched this category for further vandalism which is what I consider an editor revert of a close decision. My restore of the close decision was reverted and the user was warned. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is "Defining"

While we often hear arguments that a category must be deleted because it is not defining, we have no objective definition of what the term means. For articles, the General notability guideline provides a strong definition of which subjects are deemed to have a presumption of notability. When nominated for deletion, arguments for retention for articles that meet these criteria through the inclusion of reliable and verifiable sources about the subject will generally win the day over arguments that insist otherwise. We have no corresponding objective standard for categories. Even worse, we have the insistence that reliable and verifiable sources -- even ones that demonstrate that the category is used in books, magazines and newspapers as a means of grouping the subject -- have no place whatsoever in the CfD world. Taking the first steps on this first issue, providing an objective definition that can be met to demonstrate that category is defining, will play a major role in eliminating much of the arbitrary nature of the CfD process. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • "reliable and verifiable sources -- even ones that demonstrate that the category is used in books, magazines and newspapers as a means of grouping the subject -- have no place whatsoever in the CfD world."
    Is that true? If so, it is the wrong way to go. As elsewhere in Wikipedia, we should be guided by sources, not by our own original research. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've never viewed the deletion of a category as analogous to the deletion of articles. It's not merely about whether a topic or classification is worthy (or capable) of inclusion, though obviously a category that is not verifiable or that is POV will utterly fail at the outset. But if article inclusion standards were applied to categories, then what would stop every article from having a category? Or every fact within an article?
First off, Wikipedia:Overcategorization does provide many specific examples of what categories are not and have not been considered defining. My understanding of "defining," as I have seen it used and probably as I would like to see it used, is that it's a similar consideration to deciding what goes in the lead section of an article, or perhaps even more specifically, the lead sentence. This is an editorial judgment that Wikipedia contributors have to make, based on their understanding of the subject matter and on their best judgment as to the best way to organize information. No reliable source can tell us that conclusively, though it may be persuasive as a guide. As noted above, the simple fact that a fact is reliably sourced cannot tell us in and of itself if that is a significant enough fact to merit a category (or to go in the article's lead section, or sentence, or even whether it should go in the article). I would agree that if the category is actually used as a means of grouping the subject in academia or popular media (such as cultural genres, historical periods, professions, etc.), then that would be highly persuasive that the category is useful and defining. But I've seen plenty of disagreements as to whether proffered sources actually show such a grouping in use rather than just a statement or repetition of a cluster of facts, so agreement on that principle won't alone dictate any outcome. Bottom line, we have to discuss it in every case where there's a disagreement, just as we have to discuss what should or shouldn't go in an article's lead section. Postdlf (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no insistence that reliable and verifiable sources have no place in CFD. Indeed, for a category to be used, there needs to be sourcing for it. But that doesn't mean that every fact that you can source deserves a category. You seem to be equating sources for defining facts with sourcing for non-defining facts, which I believe to be the problem. From WP:NOT, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I agree with Postdlf in that for a fact to be defining, it should be in the lead paragraph or sentence. --Kbdank71 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion that it should be in the lead sentence is frankly ridiculous - look at the categories of any US president or other major figure. Nor will many categories universally accepted as valid relate to material contained in a properly written first paragraph or lead section, for example elected offices held in a long political career should not all be mentioned there. I prefer the standard that the relevant material would be a pretty clear omission if it were not included in an article that was a stub, but approaching non-stub standard. Of course it does not work the other way - just because the material is of that sort does not mean it should be categorized. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Postdlf's statement above. It's essentially a judgment call, and it is difficult to come up with hard and fast "rules" that will apply in every situation, though some broad, general principles could probably be laid down (e.g., "place of birth is rarely defining", as is commonly said). I also agree that any claim that it has been said by some that "sources have no place" is misguided and probably are just a misunderstanding about what someone has said about categories and sources. Things can be verifiable by reliable sources and yet not be defining for the subject. That just goes to the basic difference between being verifiable and being defining, but it doesn't mean sources are not used in categorization! Quite the opposite. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "It's essentially a judgment call" is that it turns the whole process into a game, exactly what CfD has turned into, rather than a formal, standards-based process as at AfD. With an article, editors can point to Wikipedia:Notability an its statement that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", and each significant clause there is defined. There is nothing that corresponds for categories. The "lede sentence" criteria is entirely specious, as there are plenty of things in the lead that we don't categorize by (e.g., year of death), and plenty of things that hardly ever appear in a lead (e.e., college, places of residence, cause of death, LGBT-related television episode status), which we do; The standard neither brings anything in nor does it exclude anything. The straw man that not every fact should be categorized is one few would disagree with, but again leaves the choice as arbitrary. WP:OCAT, merely provides a rationalization for deleting categories -- and its use and abuse to mean anything is another story -- but provides no basis to demonstrate that a category is defining. The closest we've heard here is Postdlf's statement that a category is defining if "the category is actually used as a means of grouping the subject in academia or popular media", but even that is qualified into near complete uncertainty. In a popularity contest, no one needs to have a meaningful reason for why category A is kept and B is deleted, as it's just an arbitrary preference. Is that all we have here? If we don't have (and can't craft) a statement that begins "a category is presumed to be defining if..." and ends with a clear and concise statement of what bears that presumption, then all we are left with is a popularity contest, and even then the vote counting often appears fixed. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We do categorize year of death, do we not? I see WP essentially as a consensus-based system, not a rules-based system. There are some rules, but more often than not we "wing it" as a collective group. Call it a "game" or a "popularity contest" if you will, but generally by-consensus is how things work in WP, and CfD is no different, really. If a more solid guideline is desired, I support the "included in the lede" rule of thumb, though it is far from perfect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It is definitely so far from perfection, that it would be quite disastrous to turn it into a guideline. Narrow minds would start (ab)using it. If anything it should be coated in generalising words like "the lead paragraph of an article is likely to give a first indication which categories might be appropriate for that article". Debresser (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Very true. And despite the objection that setting out what is not defining is not really providing a positive definition of "defining", I do think that if users wanted, it could be somewhat helpful to set out some general guidelines about what past consensus has determined is not defining in most cases. Sometimes, it can be helpful to approach tricky definitional problems by saying what the thing is not, rather than saying exactly what it is. Doing so is also not a perfect method of reaching the end goal, but it at least helps users narrow their considerations of what "defining" exactly means when there is no agreement on how to set out a positive definition. (Of course, this is precisely what WP:OCAT is. I guess I'm saying an expansion/clarification of the OCAT guidelines could be helpful.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A well-chosen pair of examples of what is not defining, would help a lot. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well from the current discussions, one could say that Category:Locations visible on Google Street View is not defining and Category:Nazi composers might not be defining depending on how we want to approach the issues raised by that category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting out what is "not defining" accomplishes absolutely nothing in showing what "is defining". The same usual suspects can decide that anything is not defining, without providing any guidance as to what is. By ensuring that no definition exists, all we have is a fifth-grade level popularity contest. The CfD game continues. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest, then? I find is doubtful that we can come to a consensus on what is defining. But we have been able to reach many consensuses on what is not, and defining what it is not does in fact bring us more clarity, though of course it doesn't take us all the way to what you're looking for. Instead of merely complaining, let's try to do something about it. You could propose a definition for what is defining, but I kind of doubt (at this stage) that any suggestion from anyone would be embraced with consensus. It's not as if you are the first user ever to identify this problem—it has been tried before, to no avail. Taking some steps is usually better than taking none, though, unless you're only interested in getting what you want. Why not at least follow the principles on which we already have some fairly strong consensus on? The fact that this happens to be what is "not defining" is less than ideal, but that doesn't mean it it is absolutely non-helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I do appreciate the demand for suggestions, but if you scroll up a bit you'll see that I have offered nine of them. In turn, you've offered none. As the leaders of CfD, casting deciding votes and overriding consensus on what is defining on dozens of occasions, it should be rather disturbing that you can't even point to any definition whatsoever of what is defining. The negative, deletionist approach of "I'll let you know if it's a problem once I decide it should be deleted" provides no guidance to editors and simply makes the task of playing the IHATEIT game all the more efficient. Contrary to this discussion here, I do "give a fuck". It's a shame that we have far too may admins who don't, but still want to play the CfD game without any principles for what makes a category defining. Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't find your comments constructive or positive. You've responded to paragraphs of explanation with reductionist characterizations and allegations, as you have done so for quite some time in many different forums. You continue to misuse "IHATEIT", which is shorthand for an irrelevant dislike of particular subject matter in XFD; it does not refer to preferences on how to organize or present subjects, as is relevant to categories, and your branding of people as just engaging in a "game" of "IHATEIT" is just insulting to everyone involved and does not accomplish anything productive. By aiming your insults at a general group of people rather than expressly targeting individuals, you may have avoided making a direct personal attack, but comments of this kind just bait others and foster a corrosive atmosphere, and keep everyone going in circles. So please stop it. Postdlf (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When I asked Alansohn, "what would you suggest?", I was hoping for an expansion of this specific proposal, which was #1 on Alansohn's wishlist: "Define what is 'defining', and establish objective standards for what meets the criteria". What does Alansohn suggest that the definition of "defining" should be? Let's hear a constructive suggestion on this point, and we'll see if there is consensus for it. The problem as I see it is there is unlikely to be any consensus on what Alansohn wants (I say this mainly because it's been tried in the past multiple times and no consensus has emerged). But I'm always keen to hear another suggestion: so let's have it. If this inquiry just gets brushed off again as a "demand for suggestions", then I think it may be time to recognise that Alansohn's repeated invocation of game-playing has become a self-fulfilling prophecy w.r.t. his own behaviour. (By the way, I believe the "don't give a fuck" comment was made by an admin with respect to Alansohn's behaviour and comments, not with respect to CfD in general.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When I offered nine different suggestions above, in response to a discussion on how to improve CfD and reduce its dysfunctionality, I thought I'd hear some concrete responses on the part of our cast of admins who have decided what is not and what is defining on hundreds of occasions. You can comb through your past experience and archives of past CfDs to come up with a determination of what would be defining by definition so that editors can have a means to stand up to the arbitrary excuses for deletion (such as stating "trivial") that too often prevail at CfD as the "better" argument. You may also want to read through WP:N to see how we use a standards-based process for determining notability in the real world of article space, in which it is possible to demonstrate that an article has a presumption of notability through reliable and verifiable sources, an option that is unavailable in any fashion at CfD. While you are working on that, you can pick through the other eight suggestions I've made and start making progress on the ones you see as most effective in creating a basic set of principles for CfD, where we actively seek a broader audience so that consensus starts to more accurately reflect that of the community as a whole. I've looked here high and low for the list of your suggestions so that I can consider which might improve CfD, but I haven't seen any. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Right. I'll take that as an "I don't have one", since what I was looking for specifically was a suggested definition of "defining", not how to determine whether or not something in article-space is notable. (This subsection of this page is discussing this particular issue of "what is defining"—it's not focusing on your other 8 suggestions, which has an open discussion in the section above. You could also start new sections for some of your other suggestions.) I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that you stated in the opening comment for this sub-section: "Taking the first steps on this first issue, providing an objective definition that can be met to demonstrate that category is defining, will play a major role in eliminating much of the arbitrary nature of the CfD process." In case it hasn't been clear up to this point: I was inquiring if you had any suggestions as to what the objective definition for "defining" would be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just had a short interesting discussion that relates to defining. I had removed Category:English Americans which is a type of category that many consider problematic. Basically a editor added this since the individual is a 12th generation decedent! Clearly in my mind that is simply not defining. But it does show that editors don't consider that categories need to be defining and that these mixed categories are being included down decedent trees. Both of these are issues. Maybe we need to define how many generations something like this is defining for. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are really two different issues: 1) whether a category should exist, and 2) whether an existing category should be applied to a particular article. On the second issue of category application, whether an existing category applies to a given individual is a matter of definition first, threshold second. What does it mean to be "English American"? Simply to have an English ancestor? And as a matter of threshold, should that term apply to a 12th generation decedent, or is it meaningless at that level? To some extent, these questions apply to most categories, but it's easier to resolve those questions for some categories than others. A common argument for deletion at CFD is that a category does not establish a meaningful inclusion threshold, such that it will inevitably encompass those for whom the term has little encyclopedic significance (not "defining", one might say) because the category name literally applies to them. I think the ethnicity categories are particularly vulnerable to that criticism for just the reason that you've pointed out, but unfortunately the consensus has been to keep those. Postdlf (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
So maybe we can use this case to address the concerns of what is defining, or maybe when is a category still defining. Clearly in the case of something like Category:English Americans 1st generation individuals should be able to establish this as defining if they left Britain as an adult. For 2nd generation individuals it would be less likely to be defining. For 3rd generation individuals it might be defining but not likely. Beyond that it is not defining unless there is something unique for an individual. If we can agree on some wording here as to when this class of categories is defining, it may help the overall discussion somewhat and we could then create a template to add to the categories to explain this. That may actually help reduce challenges to the existence of those categories since the criteria would be less subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
First generation individuals would be covered by some kind of expat category. Beyond that, there's the issue of imposing an arbitrary restriction that we can't find support for out of our own need for a limit (what reliable source says that a third gen individual can't claim to be an English American?), which may or may not be a concern, I'm sure we could point out other category structures that do it. My own view is that even among the [Fooian] Americans categories, "English Americans" has little justification for existence as a category because it's just far too common and not at all prominent in U.S. identity politics and multiculturalism (there aren't exactly any English American pride parades). But delete it and it will just pop back to complete the category structure. I've just learned to tolerate the ethnicity categories for the most part (and the gender categories, and the sexuality categories...) because I know the consensus to delete them is not there, and just for now police the arbitrary intersections of ethnicity and occupation or whatever. And I try to trust that over time, the consensus will shift as more realize just how unworkable and undesirable those categories are, or not and maybe I'll be proven wrong if people keep using them and find them workable. Choose your battles, so forth. But I digress... Postdlf (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Trying to tackle the ethnicity categories in this context would be the ultimate case of "hard cases making bad law". I believe that these types of categories Postdlf mentions—and I would add some of the various alumni categories—are cases where consensus has differed considerably on matters of abstract principles of what is defining as compared to where consensus has been in general. (It probably has to do with the fact that pretty much every editor has an ethnicity, a gender, and a sexuality, and a large percentage are an alumnus of some institution. ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ethnicity categories are a wonderful example of the nature of the beast. I agree that they are often added where there are no reliable sources in the article to support the claim, as when I saw an editor labeling all New Jersey politicians with Italian-sounding surnames as Italian-American politicians; These should be removed if they can't be supported, but the absence of sources and other questionable entries does not negate the definingness of the category. On the other hand, we have editors who insist at CfD that there is no such thing as an ethnicity category. People are described as Italian (or Fooian) Americans in reliable sources and the term is used on a defining basis. The recent closes that found Category:Italian-American politicians to be retained while Category:German-American politicians was deleted, should allow us to see why the same group of people concluded that we should keep one and not delete the other. I agree that we do categorize by consensus certain things that may not fit into a good definition, but we also end up arguing about -- and deleting -- many defining categories that would never have been brought to CfD if a proper definition existed. A few of CfD's most prolific editors are folks who had previously spent a lot of time at AfD, but ended up losing to many arguments because categories they thought weren't worthwhile were backed by reliable sources. CfD is great for those who want to impose their designs on the system, because the counterargument that sources show the category is defining are routinely ignored, an argument that would be roundly rejected at CfD for notability. Just as the key to notability is if sources have taken notice of the subject, the key to definingness involves embracing descriptions in reliable sources. I have thought of concise statements of definingness, and I will formulate one, but the best folks to have created one years ago are the admins who have been closing thousands of CfDs on the basis of definingness or non-definingness. I have no objection to creating a standard, but there ought to be one that the regular closing admins can formulate and test against the laundry list of closes to see if the shoe fits. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ethnic categories are interesting. As you say, it is easy to find sources that say someone is a Fooian American. However it is more difficult to find a source that shows how that is defining. And therein is the problem. Being something does not make it defining. That's why many of the categories you believe are defining really should be lists where you can cite sources. The only check and balance in categories is for someone to read all of the articles and remove the category from the articles that don't support inclusion. In some of the current discussions I'd bet that over 50% of the articles included are not there because the articles don't support inclusion. And there's the problem again. While a category could be defining for some, it gets abused and is no longer a measure of a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Not simply a question of whether it is defining or significant for any particular individual, but whether it is categorically defining or significant. Postdlf (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The argument is often made that a category must be deleted because there is an entry of uncertain provenance. The category is defining if it is used as a means of defining people. The inability -- especially by admins -- to distinguish between a category being defining and inclusion of particular entries is a major problem. The excuse that a category could be abused is a wonderful argument for dismantling the entire category system, but sadly has no relevance to justify the deletion of any particular category. Why is this argument ever presented, let alone given any credence, as an excuse for deletion of a particular category? Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, just because inappropriate applications of a category can be found or could be made is not, without more, a good reason to delete a category. But that's (at least usually) not the total sum of the argument, but rather the evidence someone might offer in support of the argument that the category is unworkable. The full argument for deletion is that a category's very name (effectively its only real structure) intolerably invites or permits abuse, because, e.g., its name contains vague or ambiguous terms, it fails to limit unreasonable applications, or to set meaningful criteria (whether definitional, significance threshold, or both). So (as it relates to "definingness") it's valid to point out in a CFD that a category contains a lot of entries for which it really has no significance or meaning, in arguing that the category name invites or permits those entries. Sometimes then the consensus is the category just doesn't work, sometimes the consensus is the problems can be cured by a rename, or sometimes consensus is that the maintenance problems aren't actually as severe as is argued, and that the benefits of keeping the category outweigh any problems. A counterargument that I've never been particularly convinced by is that clearer inclusion criteria could be added to the category description page. I think in practice that any inclusion criteria that is not set forth in the category's name might as well not exist. Postdlf (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Having been busy/traveling lately, and just noticed this abtruse discussion in my watchlist (odd split of "There is a problem at WP:CfD.") It probably belongs at WT:CAT instead.
  1. Anyway, many/most of the examples given so far have nothing to do with "defining." Occupation (and nationality), Heritage, and Residence all require "notability" (not merely "defining", whatever that means).
    • Remembering recent discussions:
    1. The mere fact that some musicians can also tune pianos is not necessarily notable for that particular person.
    2. There mere fact that some persons are pure descendants is not necessarily notable for that particular person.
    3. The mere fact that some people were born in a place, or moved there with their parents on the way to somewhere else, or played football for a team associated with a city for a few years (often without ever living there, or becoming a citizen of that nationality), none of these residences are notable for that particular person.
    • Many times, such categories are removed (after examining them) because there's nobody in it that meets the notability qualifications.
    1. It's possible that somebody somewhere is notable for being a piano tuner, or for advancing the art of piano tuning.
    2. Certainly, some persons are notable for the purity of their heritage, especially those participating in advocacy organizations.
    3. Obviously, there are notable persons that are notably from a particular place.
  2. As to Vegaswikian's specific example, we've long (many years) had a policy against "any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." And that's been upheld here at CfD many times over the years. So, unless there's verifiable factual evidence from reliable sources presented for more than 1 generation, that's the usual limit.
    • An American that has documented pure English heritage going back 12 generations for every ancestor would be pretty rare. But it has to be more than rare: it has to be one of the reasons that the person is notable (and published in reliable sources). That pretty much limits the category to acknowledged heads of racist organizations.
Notability is a much higher standard. Once that standard is applied, many categories are simply empty and can be deleted.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And to address the (indented) issue of persons that left England as an adult, they'd be in Category:English immigrants to the United States (not Category:English Americans). Avoid duplicate overcategorization.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should avoid the use of the word "notable" to mean anything other than "merits its own article," to avoid confusion and equivocation. As you are using it here to describe facts within articles, do you mean just a fact that "merits mention within an article" (literally "worthy of note"), or do you mean it more narrowly, a fact that is "intrinsic to the notability of an article subject"? Or something else? Postdlf (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Selected anniversaries

Anyone know what Category:Selected anniversaries is used for? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries has some info. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, one of these was nominated for speedy deletion, which is how I walked into the tree. I guess all of these need a header to point back to the use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem at WP:CfD.

Good Ol’factory suggests to me that ranting in CfD DRVs is less productive then opening a discussion here. OK then.

I think that there is a problem at CfD.
I have some ideas on what that problem is.
I don’t actually have much of an idea of what can usefully be done about it (but maybe some ideas can be developed).

Is there a problem?

The reasons to believe that there exists a problem include:

  1. Some people allege so
  2. CfD closes regularly are contentious and lead to contentious DRVs --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What might the problem be?

I think the problem is that a few administrators running WP:CfD understand wikipedia's categorisation system, and most other editors do not.

I think the root of the problem is that wikipedia’s categorisation is too complicated for the average editor. There is a division between editors who understand how we decide to categorise (the “experts”, and the rest of us (“the non-experts”). Occasionally, non-experts working with a local categorization come into conflict with the experts. This has lead to great frustration to the non-experts, who see significant efforts thrown away in the interests of maintaining a system that they don’t understand.
A manifestation of the problem is disjointed debate at CfD. The experts and non-experts debate at cross-points. Each group is prone to be dismissive of the other. The experts, tending to be populated by experienced administrators, tend to win the day at CfD. Sometimes the debate goes to DRV where it is joined by experienced administrator non-CfD-experts, and the debate becomes messy, again involving cross-points.

I offer a test of the above theory. Have the CfD-experts take a break from CfD closings and see what happens. Will the results change significantly, or stay the same. Perhaps the system will evolve to something better. Perhaps chaos will result. Note that this “test” is not suggested as solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Solutions? How might we move forward?

One idea is that we should relax on the standard for userspace categories, so that more editors can get involved in the mechanics of categorization, and perhaps learn a few things that are obvious to the experts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


At Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#resolve_the_issue_on_the_XfD_discussion_talk_page, I've made a suggestion, mostly with CfD in mind, for a subtle reform, involving reformatting CfD to "one page per discussion" (like AfD & MfD), and asking editors with problems or queries to raise their questions on the discussion talk page before going to WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Ok, I'll bite. Is there a problem? Alansohn is usually the one ranting about alleging how CFD is broken, but never backs it up with any facts. I've asked, repeatedly, for statistics to prove that it's broken. After all, people can allege anything they want, but that doesn't make it true. So maybe you can help. Out of all the closed CFD's, how many were taken to DRV? Out of those, how many were overturned? Until someone can separate proof from opinion, I'll say no, there is not a problem. --Kbdank71 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't especially agree with this analysis. It is certainly true that CfD is dominated by regulars, but I don't think the way it works and the understanding of policy needed is any greater than for AfD, and new faces usually pick things up fairly quickly. I understand aspects of things may be puzzling to first-time visitors & put them off. The interaction with specialist editors and projects can be problematic. They don't always explain their case very well, and sometimes have emptied categories before the nomination, which regulars rightly dislike. But I think nearly all regulars are very ready to defer to specialist expertise, if it is properly explained, and broader categorization principles are not breached. Most of the recent Review cases relate to issues that also split the regulars, especially ethnic/religious people categories, which is about the longest-running and most divisive issue here, & has seen a big revival in recent months. It's probably true that the regulars tend to lapse into shorthand comments they all understand, & don't always trouble to explain the issues as they see them to "visitors". The closes here are also notably laconic, & have become more so. But Good Olfactory & other editors are good on both these points, when needed. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As an article namespace editor specialising in error categories for my wikignoming, I still have an interest in the Cfd discussions. It was not hard to learn the rules: observing a few old discussions and (re-)reading a few guideline pages was enough. Using common sense also helps a lot. And knowing when not to comment.
Nevertheless, I feel that the rules are sometimes a bit complex or ambiguous, and am trying to advocate simplification (within the limited time I can dedicate to this subject). I took part in a few discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), and would like to urge other editors to do the same.
Note: I have called upon editors in the past, posting links on this page as well, but they have shown an unexplicable reluctance to go and have a look and participate, which does not benefit the community. comment by Debresser

Kbdank71, thanks for responding. I think it is true that by percentages, few CfD discussions are problematic, but this doesn't mean there is no problem. I also see Johnbod's point that the problematic CfD often involve contentious categories, rather than the system itself. However, I recall a recent case involving Category:Surnames by nationality (or similar), where the category wasn't so much contentious, and the deletion dealt a harsh blow to some editors involved, in terms of loss of information. I also note that the respected editor User:DGG, who is not prone to ranting, has occasionally made a strongly dissenting view at DRV that was ignored. And where Alansohn might be said to be ranting, I read valid points being made and repeated in frustration, and dismissed as ranting, leading to further frustration.

I don't see the three respondents disagreeing that there is a degree of complexity or non-intuitiveness that makes at less a small barrier for new partipants, and that if there is any problem, it might be simply due to lack of widespread participation. On this point, I note that the regular expert closers are not deliberately rude to newcomers, but that their statements can be read as dismissive.

Perhaps we need a page or section "Categories for beginners", if it doesn't exist already. I just discovered Help:Category, which is almost it. I know I've asked and been told some answers before, but here is a good place to repeat it. What are all the pages that should be read in order to understand how we do and don't categorise? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now, CfD is a pathetic game. A few steps to deal with these problems might include:

1) Define what is "defining", and establish objective standards for what meets the criteria, which will mean that it will be possible to circumvent the IHATEIT game by demonstrating that the clear standards have been met.
2) Eliminate those admins who alternate between voting as participants and casting supervotes as closing admins. Those with a clear inability to separate the two roles don't belong closing CfDs.
3) Create a measure of equivalence in deletion and recreation. Let's apply the same process that is used to prevent recreation of categories by preventing a second (and third, and fourth) bite at the apple to delete a category.
4) Add a notification that is displayed in each article where a category appears that the category is up for deletion. As it stands now, even regular editors who have used the category will only see the CfD notice if they happen to look at the category. Every other type of deletion discussion in Wikipedia -- article, image, template, redirect, etc. -- is marked by notification on the articles themselves where they are used.
5) Integrate CfD with AfD and other discussion areas to ensure that there is a broad audience that sees these discussions and participate, ending the cozy handful of biased individuals who currently rule the roost. Greater light shined on the process by increased participation from unbiased editors will help disinfect CfD's issues, as they largely have at AfD.
6) Start giving equal weight to arguments for retention and deletion. Where arguments are based on legitimate interpretations of Wikipedia policy and admins need to concoct arguments that one side is "better" than the other, you're looking at worst at a "no consensus". Some intellectual honesty in doing so would help turn admins from imposing well-honed biases and into neutral arbiters.
7) Accept the fact that deletion is not the solution to all problems and start finding ways to consider less disruptive means to solve problems. The "shoot the horse" solution with surnames that dumped 14,000 articles into the parent is a cardinal example of this problem. Unfortunately, the finely-tuned machine for deleting categories from articles has no corresponding means to undo the damage. This can also be helped by avoiding the zeal in near instantaneous deleting categories, especially in contentious closes where there might be legitimate arguments to overturn the decision or restructure the category before deletion.
8) Grant primacy to policies and guidelines set by the broader Wikipedia community. Deciding that guidelines on article naming and use of dashes can be ignored only exacerbates the number of CfDs where these issues are raised repeatedly by those who want to disregard broader policies.
9) End the excuse of "makes a better list" as an excuse for deletion. This one is used disturbingly often and without any other policy-based justification, despite the fact that ALL categories would be better served as lists, which can have redliinks, sources, be sorted, have explanations, be split into sections, etc. A delete argument on this basis that doesn't explain why the category under discussion should be deleted and kept as a list despite the fact that the argument applies to every other category that exists, has no place at CfD.

As it stands now, a disturbing number of CfDs are based almost entirely on WP:IHATEIT votes, which are accepted as gospel truth while any contrary votes are repeatedly ignored or disregarded as somehow "unconvincing" by biased admins who too often appear to have prejudged the close before they looked at any arguments. The greater openness, transparency and broader participation these changes can bring might not solve all the problems at CfD immediately, but would be an excellent start in ensuring that CfD closes start to reflect actual consensus of the community as a whole, not just the arbitrary preferences of the usual suspects. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn surely has a lot of suggestions. That is good. Thank you. I personally fail to see the truth or point in most of his suggestions. I would agree strongly with 4), and see some merit in 3) also. Actually, 3) is not a rule, but editors enforce it anyway, as can be seen in yesterdays renominations of "Jewish" categories. On the other hand, I have nominated a rename not so long ago, which was rejected because another editor clouded discussion with personal remarks, and I would like to have the right to renominate it some time in the near future. So I wouldn't agree with a clear-cut rule forbidding renomination. 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
  • Comment. So far I see two editors who think there is a systemic problem or problems, and more than 2 editors who don't seem to think so. Before worrying about what to do to resolve the problem, it will probably be helpful to decide whether or not there is a problem. It seems to me that there is unlikely to even be consensus on this basic issue, in which case it may be worth considering an acknowledgement that maybe reasonable users can disagree on many of these issues, and that there's not necessarily anything "special" about CfD that makes it "broken" any more than we can say WP in general is "broken". Of course, it's not a perfect system. Show me a procedure in WP that is. (Incidentally, much of the original post seems to be based on the premise that only one or two admins are closing discussions. This is not the case, especially as of late. The level of users' activities can be cyclical; for me, there are some periods where I am very active in closing CfDs, and others where I close hardly any at all. From what I've seen, it's the same for many admins.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I do like the "So far I see two editors who think there is a systemic problem or problems, and more than 2 editors who don't seem to think so." Are we determining consensus based on counting votes, or is that only when it matches the intended result? The closes brought to DRV appear to be coming from a very small number of admins. I think you're seeing part of the solution. There have been a few new admins who have been able to bring a good deal of the openmindeness and respect for consensus often absent at CfD to the process of closing. It seems that the new brooms have swept cleaner, or at least made less of a mess. Alansohn (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't yet see much of a consensus that something is wrong. Maybe you can. So far it's you—the perennial complainer about these issues—and one other user. Perhaps it is impressive that you now have one disciple. At the end of the day, I think most users have learned to deal with ad nauseum complaining in the standard way. As for the recent closers, I think they are doing well. It is amusing—had I closed this discussion in the same way the closer did, I can virtually guarantee we would have seen some temper tantrums, but it is reassuring to see my personal assessments of consensus being confirmed by other admins. (Incidentally, before you relish your tabulation of the pure quantity of CfDs from a particular closer are brought to DRV, you may wish to consider the number of those DRVs that have resulted in "overturn", and then calculate the percentage that the "overturns" represent out of the total number of closes the closer has performed, and then compare the ratio with other closers. Apparently anyone can start a DRV to make any point they like; pure numbers of DRVs started proves nothing. On the other hand, if you come up with 0% overturn, that may prove something.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
At this point I would like to state my opinion that in general closing editors are doing a good job. Especially so since they know there will always be some that will not be content with their decision. I welcome new participants and closing editors, or old ones reactivating. I'd like to state clearly at this point that I do not think we have a problem, but at the same time, that there is room for improvement. That is what Wikipedia is about, now isn't it? Debresser (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Good Olfactory, It is somewhat patronising, and non-robust in terms of logical debate, to (1) both say that few people complain, and (2) so easily dismiss complaints when they do occur. I should also object to being referred to as someone's disciple.
My observation is that at DRV, CfD disputes stand out as the most messy. I'll assert that a problem is that collective wisdom is often not reflected in the opinions of the majority of participants (ie "the numbers"). Perhaps it is the case that the closes against the numbers are actually the right decision. In that case, the problem is that the participants don't really understand. I am not saying that CfD is "broken", but that while it is working, it is accompanied by unsatisfying squealing. I'm looking for solutions, beginning with a better definition of the problem, and criticizing the style of a longstanding critic is not helpful. I am happy to accept that "the problem" is not obvious, but do not agree that disagreement about the problem, or an analysis, is evidence that there is no problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be patronising. But am looking for an indication that there is a broader "community" that thinks there is a problem before I worry too much about complaints of systemic problems. If a systemic problem exists then there should be some sort of systemic agreement (call it "consensus", if you will) that it exists. So far I'm not seeing it. That approach may offend the two individuals who have expressed a concern here, but that is not my intent. I'd be fine if proved wrong, but at this point I'm not seeing a the type of groundswell one would expect if there were a problem requiring the types of solutions you propose. Administrative procedures on WP can always be improved here and there with a bit of tinkering, of course. But I'm not seeing any evidence of systemic problems.
In other words: where is the evidence? You provide two reasons you think there is a problem: 1. Some people allege so; 2. CfD closes regularly are contentious and lead to contentious DRVs. (1) is hardly convincing when so far we have only two people "saying so". And it is essentially nullified when you have an equal number or more people "saying not". And even if everyone is saying so (which they are not), other evidence is good to have, isn't it? So let's move to the next reason. (2) is overstated, in my opinion. The surnames close and DRVs in the past month have been contentious, but apart from that it is quite a rare event for CfD closes to go to DRV, and even rarer that a close is overturned. One contentious issue does not a crisis make. So I'd ask again: where is the evidence? It's often asked for when Alansohn (and now you) have "said so" that a problem exists, but it has never been provided. I wanna see it. So show it to me—convince me. Where's the evidence of the systemtic problem? Show me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Far more than two have "said so", if you go through the CfD-DRV archives. However, it is the case that these people haven't joined this conversation, so I guess I'll have to let it go, noting that some peole have mentioned recent improvement. Also, to be honest, while Alansohn makes points I agree with, he also goes beyond what I would say. I don't support all of his nine points, but some, and especially #4:

" 4) Add a notification that is displayed in each article where a category appears that the category is up for deletion. As it stands now, even regular editors who have used the category will only see the CfD notice if they happen to look at the category. Every other type of deletion discussion in Wikipedia -- article, image, template, redirect, etc. -- is marked by notification on the articles themselves where they are used."

would seem to be a very good idea at involving more people, which I think all, in principle, agree would be a good thing. Would you, Good Olfactory, agree with this? It may need developer help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much about the practicalities of implementing such a suggestion but assuming it can work essentially as it does for templates, etc., I don't think there would be much of a downside once it was implemented. I probably wouldn't have much to say about it one way or the other since I don't know a lot about how hard it is to implement. I'd go with the flow on that one, and certainly wouldn't oppose a move to implement it. (Though I have doubts as to whether it would in fact substantially increase participation—just look at templates for deletion or files for deletion if you want to see some discussion forums even more anemic than CfD. CfD looks quite robust and healthy in comparison.)
As for those who have "said so"—it may well be that others have said as much in the past, but at the end of the day whether it's 2 or 20 making the claims I'm interesting in seeing some evidence of the claims that goes beyond mere assertion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. I haven't been spending much time around here recently, but years back I was heavily involved with CfD and the writing of the categorization guidelines.

There is a perennial problem with categorization and since the problem has not been addressed, it creates a perennial problem with CfD. When categories were created there was no consensus on what they should be used for, and over time competing philosophies of categorization have arisen that are incompatible with each other. Categorization is seen as:

  1. A tagging system that should be free-form and open to any verifiable way of organizing articles.
  2. A way of grouping similar articles together to facilitate browsing.
  3. An organized hierarchical system of article classification.
  4. An indexing system for topics.

An indexing system implies bigger categories, classification leads to smaller ones, tagging systems conflict with hierarchies and classification. The system we have created does all four of these things together, some better than others, but none perfectly. It is a strange compromise, one that is very hard to explain, hard to understand and difficult to defend.

On top of the philosophical problems, there are technical ones. The lack of an automated dynamic system to create category intersections leads to disagreement on how many intersection categories should be manually populated. The inability to quickly revert categorization changes makes it very difficult to prevent the creation of smaller and smaller subcategories and the depopulation of larger ones. The lack of a pure-wiki revert process makes it much more difficult to exert pressure against the desire to diffuse. I cannot understand why we allow categories that have existed for years without controversy, to be depopulated as they are diffused into smaller ones. If a category is valid and useful, it is still valid and useful after a smaller sub-unit has been created.

So as I see it, we have no choice, given the technology that we have, to be anything other than quirky. If we are going to make any improvements, we would first have to have some consensus about our underlying philosophic goals and our technological limitations and an understanding about how to deal with both. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would say that Sam's comments above go to the very heart of the matter. Those users who are troubled by the results at CfD are probably conceptualizing categories as serving different functions than the functions envisaged by other editors who are happy with CfD. Since categories do all four of the possible uses in a kind-of-OK way, there's no consensus on their true function and therefore most CfD discussions are pretty much conducted in an ad hoc way, since there may not be a philosophical underpinning which all editors have agreed to. If this indeed is the problem, I'm not sure that there's a ready solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for tagging assistance

I'd like to request assistance in tagging these categories appropriately.   — C M B J   19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trick-taking card games Category

Card games belong to three distinct families: Trump, Rummy and Solitaire. Unfortunately, none of these are listed as "Categories" in Wikipedia. All the articles about card games are listed in categories which actually are sub-groups of card games, like Matching games, Trick-taking card games, etc, of the three families mentioned above. Some categories, like Anglo-American playing card games, list games like Ecarte (which is historically of French origin) and many others which could never be classified as Anglo=American. Is there anything that could be done ? Krenakarore (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recreating a deleted category

Ok, I want to recreate a category that was previously deleted via discussion. The category was deleted over a year and a half ago. At the time Wikiproject:Poker was not notified so we couldn't defend the the category, but that is not the grounds upon which I want to recreate the category. Over the past few years the prestige and prominence of belonging to the Poker Hall of Fame has grown. This year in particular, the World Series of Poker which now administers it, has done a terrific job of marketting the POH. Heck, the article on the Poker Hall of Fame in 2007 was a genuine POS, it is now a featured list. I have zero doubt that if the category were placed for CfD today, it would survive because the prestige of the award has blossomed. As a category, there really isn't much to add to the category... so how do I go about recreating it? Do I just recreate it knowing that it was once deleted and leave rationale on the talk page explaining why it shouldn't be speedied? (Also, personally, I think the problem really stems from adding the category to the two players who were awarded the award post humously, I don't think it should be added to them, as there the criticism of overcat might be applicable, but today, it is a designation sought out by poker's top players.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is purely coincidental or not, but you might want to look at this. (Probably a slightly different issue—a category for halls vs. inductees into halls.) (As to your actual question, I suppose the usual route would be WP:DRV; the typical practice for halls of fame inductees has been to create lists rather than categories; see Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

backlog and analysis of C1 and C2 nominations

This is a follow on to this discussion. In deleting these, it appears that there are several things going on. One is that there is a lot of activity within projects to rename the projects. When this happens they apparently change the templates which moves everything to a new series of categories and leaves the old ones as empty. While emptied out of process, I have not found a reason to reject any of these. It would be nice if some admin that runs a bot or script could delete these. That would make it much easier to find the other stuff which clearly does have issues, like one today which was a no consensus at CfD in June and someone emptied out of process after the discussion. Right now, it is difficult to find the problems since the project stuff overwhelms everything else. So if a few admins can stop by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories possibly emptied out of process to help out it would be appreciated. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have brought this to CsD for a discussion on the talk page. Basically I'm suggesting that we eliminate C2 in favor or G6 and {{cfr-speedy}} and that C1 be restricted to use on categories that were never used. Please comment over there with your opinions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Once the unused quality categories are deleted for a particular topic, there is sometimes left a set of pages in the Wikipedia area that were used to generate stats, e.g. see Category:Catholicism in Great Britain articles by quality. My question is: should these be deleted and if so, should I take it to WP:MFD? -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This is being discussed on the talk patge for criteria for speedy deletion. My opinion there is that if these are for the project and there is a project wide naming change, then these can be deleted under G6. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Persons in non-person categories

Hi.

I noticed that a lot of persons are listed in the Congressional scandals category. I don't think they belong there, so I added a comment to the talk page. But maybe this is a better place to discuss the matter. But this is neither a delete, nor a rename, a conversion or a merger. So what do I do?

Cheers LarRan (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging assistance - Dance

I'd like tagging assistance with the many subcategories of Category:Dance redirects. I already have an umbrella of 3 nominations here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_24#Category:Arts_redirects, but I did not realize how many were under dance. Clubmarx (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting Wikipedia:Category deletion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Wikipedia:Category deletion policy had its policy status removed and were moved to Wikipedia:Category deletion, now all the content from that page is included in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, so it's proposed there to simply redirect it here. Cenarium (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

creating new categories

I have a proposal for a new category but need some input on what to name the category.

Roughly it is a category for people with the word "the" in their name. We have a list for people named "the great" but their are other words besides great. Examples are Charles the Fat, Frederick the Wise,--T1980 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That would almost certainly be deleted per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES i'm afraid. A list should be ok. List of historical figures known by adjectival names? Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of country abbreviations?

Discussion seems to have taken place in mid-2005 at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming and Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Archive 4#New speedy criteria, and it was added in this edit. However, nobody seems to have noticed the elephant in the room: Category:Georgia (U.S. state). This was created in June 2004 and has remained there to this day, matching the article Georgia (U.S. state).

I would like to propose a change to this criterion to exclude any categories that have the abbreviation in the parenthetical disambiguation, or that otherwise match the article name (example: Category:U.S. Route 50, clearly much more common than "United States Route 50"). --NE2 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure if it's worth creating a special exception. Doing so would require an explanation, and the criterion could quickly become confusing to newcomers. Wouldn't these just be better treated in a case-by-case basis as they arise, since they are not very common? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring the Disney Legends category back

G'day, I would like to bring up for discussing the bringing back the Disney Legends category, three of the four people who voted delete gave reasons that were really quite bogus 1) Disney is NOT a private owned company, stocks can be bought for $1000 US 2) per nom, I've read other delete votes and when I read per norm for a reason to delete I get incredibly annoyed, that's no better then the nominator voting twice 3) It is not a bloody employee of the month award, it's more then just that, the Disney Legends award states that you are apart of the Walt Disney legacy, that you made a large contribution to such a great legacy. One vote stated they already have a list and another vote stated it doesn't have an encyclopedic purpose, well there are dozens of other hall/walk of fame categories, so what makes the Disney hall of Fame any different.--The King of Australia (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • While "per nom" is not a particularly strong argument, it is a legitimate shorthand to express support of the nominator's position and reasoning. Ideally it should be avoided but it is in no way the equivalent of the nominator voting twice. The CFD was unanimous in favor of deletion. The appropriate format for discussing re-creation is WP:DRV but you will need to provide some fairly compelling evidence either that the original CFD was closed in error or that significant new information regarding the category has come to light since it was deleted. DRV is not CFD round two and simply disagreeing with the outcome of a discussion will not suffice to allow re-creation. That other HoF or WoF categories exist is not relevant. Over three dozen such categories have been deleted over the last couple of years and there's no indication that the general consensus against them is changing. Otto4711 (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories emptied out of process

What is the procedure for addressing a category that has been emptied out of process (i.e., without having followed any of the processes outlined on WP:CFD)? I have in mind, for example, Category:Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea, all the articles in which were moved into Category:Administrative divisions of Adygea by User:Ezhiki, who, being an admin, then deleted the "empty" original category. I'm not quite sure what if anything to do now; the renaming itself seems to make sense, even though it did not follow the "approved" process. And I certainly wouldn't propose to un-do the renaming and go back to a less desirable title just because of a procedural impropriety. Any advice? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This rename seems to have brought that category into line with the other subcategory and articles in Category:Administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia. In that case it could be perhaps morally argued as a speedy rename. Strictly speaking is isn't speediable and should have been fully cfd'd but on the whole it's not the worst example of out-of-process I've ever seen. WP:IAR?
The "this user believes that process is important on Wikipedia and is opposed to its circumvention" userbox on User:Ezhiki's page did raise a smile though.
Xdamrtalk 18:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, as I stated when I was holding all of these, there are actually some that would pass a full CfD review. This is probably an example of one of those. Then there are the ones that would never get approved. You can probably leave a note on the users talk page and that would be the end of it. In some cases WP:BOLD may be the proper guidance, but only when the outcome is clear. I would condition that on also being a regular at CfD otherwise, how can you even guess what might be supported? But then, do all of my nomination get support? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't do process for process' sake. If the right thing was done, then forget about it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, here's my response to Russ. I don't really have much else to add to it to warrant posting a separate response here. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:21, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Please remember that we are seeing more of this and in many cases the actions are simply wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Learned that much :) Thanks and happy edits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Although Kotniski is surely right that "we don't do process for process' sake", nevertheless it is only natural that an editor would fell a little too sure of himself and the absolute necessity of his edits. That is what we have discussions for. Therefore I feel that a user who empties a category out of process should receive a warning. We indeed might make a user warning template. Debresser (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal: post a note to the talk pages

(Alansohn’s). When a category is nominated for deletion/merges/renames, post a note to the talk page of every page that is in the category. I imagine that this would require a simple bot. The note should be very clear that it is a category to be deleted/merged/renamed, not the pages in the category. The object here is to get a larger number of interested editors involved in category discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Although that surely would have the desired effect, I do not think it would be beneficial to the discussions. Moreover, as a "simple" reader of a page, I would hardly be interested in something like categories. I'd rather see this as another annoying Wikipedia maintenance tag. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A simple reader of a page wouldn't see the note, as it would be on the talk page. To see it, you would have to read the talk page, or have the page watchlisted. I'd suggest the note to be a simple text message with a wiki link, not a tag in a box with colours and fancy formatting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of more notifying than we currently do (which is very little indeed). I think the creator of a category should be notified, the talk page of a main article if there is one, and any projects that the category or main article is tagged with. I don't know if a bot can handle that. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • We could make notification of the creator and the talk page of a main article if there is one mandatory for the nominator? Notifying every involved talk page would be simple, and if the note were brief and unobtrussive it shouldn't upset uninterested people, and it should catch anyone potentially interested. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • While I don't disagree with the basic idea, this is going to generate a tremendous amount of "junk-mail"-type notices on article pages, since many categories which are nominated (sometimes for small changes to the name) contain literally hundreds of articles. I can see them attracting increased attention and participation in CfD when first implemented, but before too long they will be like the boy who cried wolf—users might just start ignoring them as annoying bot edits when they realize that most category rename proposals are "boring" and routine, not life-and-death discussions for the existence of the category itself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal. Separate Categories for Deletion from Categories for Discussion

The majority of CfDs seem to be uncontroversial renames, and they make watching for interesting deletion discussions difficult. Alternatively, provide an indexing service to pull out CfDs where “delete” is proposed. (or is this already available?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd oppose such a proposal. I do not see the need for this. After all, we are not here for the "intersting" discussions. This is a serious task in administrating Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Since any discussion can lead to deletion, that type of split would not work as expected. Would we need to move a deletion discussion that's becoming a rename/merge to another place? What about a rename that is going to become a delete decision? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
For that matter, a merger nom is at least partly a deletion, not to mention the fact that mergers themselves can raise just as much of controversy. Taking that into account, going by the spirit of this proposal, a significant part of Cfd's daily log could characterised as 'interesting' enough to be highlighted in this way. Personally I don't think Cfd has the traffic issues which would require this sort of approach. An average of 20-25 discussions per day doesn't leave much chance of potentially contentious nominations being overlooked.
Having said that, if we did want to make Cfd more tightly focused on the controversies rather than simple housekeeping, one potential way forward would be to implement some hybrid of Speedy Rename and WP:PROD for categories. After a two or three day listing on the WP:CFD mainpage, those renames not objected to would go through. If any objection was raised then the nomination could be transferred for full Cfd debate.
Xdamrtalk 19:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Debessers comments seem to deny what I thought was a past agreement that wider community involvement in CfD was highly desirable.
The point is taken that there is a continuum from deletions to mergers to contested renames to simple housekeeping.

  • Does anyone oppose an bot indexing service that pulls out CfDs where "delete" is or becomes an option?
  • Xdamr's suggestion of a separate "proposed category rename" seems good to me. I haven't understood why such things are given such a formal forum. Unlike deletions and mergers, aren't they trivially reversable, as they don't involve any loss of information?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all renames are content-neutral. Many significantly change a category's contents by altering its scope, usually to make it more narrow and focused. Postdlf (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
But these content changes occur by manual editing, yes? Is there an argument here for not having proposed renames going ahead without a CfD if htere is no opposition? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No. A category rename cannot be done manually, even if it's a minor tweak. Because of the impossibility of "moving" a category in the same way that an article is moved, CfD has been the default method for renaming, even for small changes. The non-controversial exceptions are covered by the speedy criteria. Anyone can propose that a new criterion be added to these criteria, but in my experience it's relatively hard to get consensus to change these since it's very rare that we can generalise and say such-and-such a type of change will always be uncontroversial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing fictional people with real people

See question/discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories

Please express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Polish refugees

Lack of sources documenting the refugee status for the articles of the "Polish emigrants" or "Polish refugees" category.IMHO, other categories are more appropriate for these people. Inappropriate relationship with the category called "emigrant" and "immigrant"--WlaKom (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dashes in category names

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus favors option #2. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever since the Manual of Style was updated to indicate that article titles should, when appropriate, use en dashes instead of hyphens (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes), there has been no clear guidance regarding the use of dashes in category titles. To the best of my knowledge, most proposals at Categories for discussion to change hyphens to en dashes have been rejected.

Although the debate is essentially one between competing desires for precision and ease of use—naturally, one's point of view affects one's perspective on the relevance and significance of the debate to each of these goals—the lack of clear direction has resulted in inconsistency and diminished usability. I know that this topic has been discussed before, but I do not believe that a centralized discussion has yet taken place. I propose that we try to reach some kind of agreement on this issue and expand the speedy renaming criteria to include hyphen-to-dash or dash-to-hyphen changes.

So, should we:

  1. Deprecate the use of en dashes in category titles and use hyphens instead; or
  2. When appropriate, use en dashes in category titles and create category redirects (see Template:Category redirect) from hyphenated titles (in principle, a bot should be able to do this)?

In the hopes of stimulating discussion on the topic, I have left notices pointing to this discussion at the talk pages of various project pages, including Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • #2. I don't feel too strongly about this—certainly not enough to argue about it with anyone—but I think that on balance it would be easier and look more professional to have one rule for hyphen/dashes and apply it WP-wide. As long as category redirects exist, no major problems should result. I can appreciate that some editors find dashes difficult to type, but I see that as more of a personal computer-usage deficit than anything else. Unless we specifically ban all "non-standard" characters from category names, I don't see any reason to single out en-dashes. If users find the rules of when to use what dash to be confusing, they can easily leave the issue to those for whom it is not confusing at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
We tried this (the last thing you said) - the devs almost got there, then stalled at the last hurdle (as they often seem to do with anything that would actually make the software better).--Kotniski (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #1 - for simplicity. When to use en or em dashes is complicated. I note the MOS already has one exception "Dashes should never be used in the filenames of images (use hyphens instead)" and also note that "editors should provide a redirect page to [articles with en dashes in the title], using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia". Presumably we would have to do this every time - how many currently do, I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think it's done at least most of the time; I also see many redirects with all sorts of capitalisation variations that, strictly speaking, are not really necessary—typing that name in the search box would come up with the right article as the first result in the search page, anyway. As far as the images exception is concerned, I should classify them in the same category as templates: ease of use is important, appearance almost not at all. (Casual readers are not intended to visit template pages, and although they are expected to visit image pages, the names of these rarely display standardisation of any sort. Waltham, The Duke of 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2, of course. Why would we want to perpetrate vertical inconsistencies like this. Some editors are uncomfortable with en dashes becuase they have a problem finding how to key it in on their computers (it's really not hard), or use a browser or font that poorly distinguishes between the two symbols, or are influenced by the neglect of en dashes by the designers of html. En dashes are quite different to hyphens in function, and their proper use helps readers (even if readers don't explicitly know how to use them). Hyphens are also harder to read on many monitors, where the meaning of the items is in apposition ("Mexican–American War", not "Mexican-American War"; "x–y relationship", not "x-y relationship"). We are a professional outfit, aren't we? Or maybe not? Tony (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Not according to my own definition of professional, as AFAIK no-one earns their living by editing Wikipedia. --___A. di M. 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe, but we do have to compete with professionals. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 Per Tony, assuming that the category redirect system is easy to implement. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A category redirect (see Template:Category redirect) is more like a one-link disambiguation page than a regular redirect. Basically, an editor who searches for the title of the category redirect will not be automatically taken to the target category; instead, she will arrive at the category redirect, where a notice will direct her to manually reach the target category. For an example of a category redirect, see Category:Actresses. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 The only argument against this is that category redirects are unsatisfactory, because they "have to" be soft redirects. They don't - it's a popular superstition. But even if we insist on clinging to that superstition, I still don't consider it a strong enough argument for using inconsistent typography (how often do users type in the name of a category? it never seems to be a problem with the many other non-keyboard characters we use in category names).--Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know about the average user, but I almost always reach categories by typing in the name. In fact, other than visiting an article one knows or suspects to be in a category, searching for the name of the category (or one of its parents) is the only way to locate a category. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We should do the same as articles, that is an argument we see on every Cfd discussion page. So let's change all hyphens to en-dashes. And if we do so, it should be a speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not ALL hyphens, obviously;)--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidently not all that obvious! Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's right. I meant those hyphens that are now en-dashes in article mainspace. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 – if en-dash is correct within the title of an article then it should be used in the corresponding category name. It doesn't seem too onerous to have to navigate (at worst) via a category redirect. (Indeed IMO there should be category redirects anyway between the dash and the en-dash versions.) Occuli (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is MOS policy that there always are - but how often does this happen? Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it policy for category names? If so, a bot should be sent off as there is much to do. (Category:Wikipedia category redirects could have a subcat for those whose names involve a dash of some sort. Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict needs several redirects.) Occuli (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
See MOS quote in my first comment. If the point of all this is consistency, why would it not apply to categories? Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's one of the points of this discussion. WP:DASH is part of the MOS too, and there's a debate as to whether it does (and even should) apply to categories. It would be nice if we could just say—"yes, the MOS applies to category space". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 Any time fine typography is further used on Wikipedia, it increasingly seems to be a more professional product—even if it is at a subconscious level. Bots and redirects handle the rest. Greg L (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #3 My two cents: When redirects to categories really work (i.e. someone can type Category:Foo-bar baz in the search box, hit "Go" and be taken to "Category:Foo–bar baz" without further clicks, and someone can add [[Category:Foo-bar baz]] to an article and it'll automatically be added to Category:Foo–bar baz, too), then category names should follow the same rules as article names (i.e., use dashes when necessary, but always create redirects from ASCII-only titles). Until them, I suggest a rule discouraging non-ASCII characters (or at least non-ISO 8859-15 characters) from category names. (BTW, since someone mentioned image names, people don't usually type them, rather they copy and paste them — at least, I do; therefore I don't see the point of forbidding non-ASCII characters, unless they make the name hard to copy and paste, like non-printable characters or characters in right-to-left scripts such as Arabic. OTOH, they are never displayed except in the source mark-up, so I don't see the point of insisting that they should use standard English punctuation, spacing and capitalization rules rather than e.g. "QCDphasediagram" or "AmchitkaAlaskaLoc". IMO that doesn't even belong to the MOS.)--___A. di M. 21:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The two conditions you state are pretty much fulfilled already (or could be) - there's no reason for disallowing hard category redirects (there's some argument that people will be confused if they arrive at a category and don't find there the article they came from, but there are multiple better ways of solving that problem, to the extent it is a problem at all); and there is a bot that moves articles out of redirected categories. In any case, the fact that these solutions are not 100% ideal is not in any way an argument against non-ASCII characters - it could just as well be an argument against using ASCII alternatives (if people paste rather than type the names, as they probably often do, then they will be using the characters they find in the text). But frankly, the alleged technical problems here are pretty well imaginary.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #1 When appropriate is the reason that #2 does not work. Entering special characters is a royal pain and without functioning redirects, it is simply too high a price to pay for any gain in readability. NE2 is correct in that when a better technical solution is available then we can reconsider. Until then, there is no reason to change the long standing consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
What long-standing consensus? Whenever we discuss this the same arguments always come up on both sides, and we never agree. But when people keep talking about the need for a technical solution, without answering my arguments as to why there's nothing wrong with the technical solutions we have, then it's hard to see any motive other than fear-sowing. We do non-keyboard characters on Wikipedia - they're slightly more difficult to type, but no more so in category names than in any other context (less so in fact, since if you really can't be bothered to type a dash in a category, then a bot will come and tidy up after you).--Kotniski (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The one that has prevailed for a long while. Ignoring the past does not make it go away. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh?? If there is established consensus, why do people keep re-proposing this rule, and why does it keep being rejected? And why do none of those claiming technical issues want to address the arguments that there aren't any?--Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, Vegas? Looks to me as though there's a clear majority for #2 here. Like Kotniski, I too would like to hear someone properly address this "technical issue"—or is it a case of the emperor's new clothes. I believe this solid support for #2 should be acted on. Tony (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to recap thus far:
    • Option 1: 2 users
    • Option 2: 7 users
    • Option 3: 2 users Tony (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Again ignoring the past does not help. This is a new discussion and does not consider the history of what has been actual decided by many discussions. Also, the consensus becomes less clear if you don't vote count. Also, if you look at the discussion here, the 1 and 3 positions are not really different for the most part. Yes, I have a favorite, but when category names need to be typography favorable, that is for many a weak excuse. Are we going to publish the the category contents for reading pleasure? Also how many readers will understand this difference? All in all, I don't see how this will improve the encyclopedia and may make it more difficult for many readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
        • If we can't move beyond the past, what's the point of even discussing this? I'm not aware of any consensus that has resulted from past discussions. Nothing was decided—except that nothing would be decided. (Really, we should do something. In light of the informal survey above, why couldn't we have a short trial period or something to allow these to be speedied, and we could see how things go? This could be done with the understanding that any that are changed could be reverted, if necessary, at the end of the trial period.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 There's no reason to name articles and categories differently. A category redirect from the hyphenated title should point readers to the correct category, and if I understand correctly bots can fix links to those articles to point to the right place. A better support for category redirects would be nice, of course. Jafeluv (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #1 - the average editor is unaware of the hyper-technicalities of WP:DASH and are likely to search for categories using a hyphen which can be produced with a single keystroke rather than a dash which is produced by some method that I as someone who's used a computer almost every day for over two decades do not know and have never had reason to learn, since the only time that this insistence on dashes over hyphens has ever been enforced in my experience (which includes stints as copywriter, proofreader, copy editor and editor of several publications in a variety of media) is here. Demanding that the non-intuitive dash be used is bureaucracy. Otto4711 (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Again you fail to address the point. No-one has to type a dash when searching for categories, any more than they do when searching for other pages.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 With regards to typographic compatibility, I look at the issue in terms of what can be seen in an article. Template and file names are invisible, so they do not need to use special characters—usability is more important there. Other articles, disambiguation pages, and category names are visible, and thus they should conform to the house style. Think of it like one of those nineteenth-century department stores, when they still paid attention to taste in decoration (the game has been lost long since). Doesn't it just look better when the "No admittance to non-employees" signs (of whatever they usually read) on the service doors match the rest of the signs in the place? (Not to mention the doors themselves.) And it's more than just appearance; I fear that the lack of compatibility can confuse some readers into believing that a difference in meaning may exist between the term with the hyphen and the one with the dash, however small. As long as we retain dashes—which can safely be taken for granted for the purposes of this discussion—we ought to apply them uniformly where plainly visible to casual readers. Waltham, The Duke of 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2. For the sake of consistency and to comply with the Manual of Style. I find the "non-standard keyboard characters are barriers to navigation" argument weak, when we have an amazing amount of categories that use diacritics, such as á, é and so on, that no one argues against. I'm definitely not on the bandwagon to turn these into simple As and Es, so it only seems fit to make dashes into en dashes where appropriate. — Σxplicit 21:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Diacritics are part of the established spelling of a subject's name. En-dashes are arbitrary typographical decisions that serve little or no purpose. Given that the difference between dashes and hyphens are in many instances undetectable to the average reader, the idea that an undetectable difference makes us look more professional is a bit silly. WP:MOS is a guideline and thus subject to exception and "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps we're coming at this from a direction that's far too particularlized? Should we be asking and debating whether category names should have any non-ASCII standard characters in it? If the answer is "no"—we use no non-standard characters and our problem is solved. If the answer is "yes", then we keep doing as we've done and use WP:DASH to extend it to cover various types of dashes. In other words, why are we singling dashes out for special treatment here? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • #2 I agree with Tony; we may be amateurs but we want to look professional, and the Manual of Style is one of the ways we achieve that. WP:DASH outlines several reasons why n-dashes are preferred and I don't see why Categories need to be exempt from it. Tassedethe (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Update:
    • Option 1: 3 users
    • Option 2: 11 users
    • Option 3: 2 users

I think this is telling us something, even if we go not by the numbers but the feeling, the qualitative comments. Tony (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One think that is noticeable, FWIW, is that all 3 Option 1 voters are regular heavy contributors here, as of course are GO & BF, and there is a great wodge of Option 2 voters hardly ever, if at all, seen here before. I'm not sure what this means, but categories are not articles, and sometimes things need to be done differently. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
By my count, "CfD regulars" are still favouring #2 over #1 by a 5–3 margin. ←(Did you notice the en-dash there? Canny, no?) (I counted as "regulars" who voted #2: me, Occuli, Explicit, Tassedethe, and Jafeluv. I didn't count Black Falcon as being in either camp since it's not totally clear what he thinks.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I missed Occuli, who is certainly a "regular heavy contributor" - my carefully chosen term. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is a lovely argument against mandating typographical standards, but which does not address the difficulty that demanding those standards actually benefits the reader or the editor. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects

Option 2 really relies on these working in some automated way. Does anyone know if this is fact? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does require this. Option #2 says we would "create category redirects (see Template:Category redirect) from hyphenated titles". It's not talking about a new and improved way of re-directing categories: it's referring to the same way we've always done it—through Template:Category redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Although we certainly could introduce a new and improved way if we wanted - using hard redirects instead of soft. Does anyone actually know of any reason not to do this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Category_redirect#FAQ. Not sure how up-to-date all these issues are. And here, which you started, but which never really came to a conclusion on this. I think it may be time to at least try doing some hard redirects with categories; hyphen vs. dash situations seem like an ideal candidate since it won't really matter which text appears at the bottom of the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The "redirects now work" thread proved to be premature, since the devs hadn't quite got it right, and then apparently stopped thinking about it (and disabled the functionality that did work). So certainly the software doesn't automatically recategorize pages from redirected categories as we would like it to, BUT there is an active bot (User:RussBot) which takes care of this. If we wanted to try out hard redirects, then we would have to ask for RussBot to be reprogrammed somewhat, since (AIUI) at the moment it automatically converts hard redirects into soft ones before handling them. --Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. So as far as I know, there's not really a reason not to, though implementing #2 and hard redirects simultaneously might be biting off more than we could chew at once. Maybe we can try out #2 first and then move to hard redirects if we think it would work better that way? Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been one week; where is everyone? For all it's worth, I agree with this course of action (going with #2 and leaving the hard redirects for later). I am tired of seeing this discussion repeated over and over again, and I don't think I've seen as much of this as others have. Waltham, The Duke of 20:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to recruit an uninvolved user to come in and perform a closing on this and to judge where consensus lies. I know how I would close it, but I participated, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
We could ask at the admins' noticeboard, but if everyone agrees that consensus seems to be to do as Good and the Duke suggest, then that won't be necessary. So does anyone disagree with that conclusion (with the fact that it is consensus, I mean)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Items to be merged

There are 47 categories in Category:Items to be merged. That is to say that they were tagged incorrectly with one of the merge templates. Anybody wants to take upon himself to list them on Cfd? In the mean time I have put up a warning on Template:Merge/doc (which is now the centralised documentation page for all remaining merge templates), that the merge templates are not to be used for categories, referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion instead. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put a few of these up for discussion today. Just going to wait now to see what response others have to putting other people proposals up for discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It is common practise to help complete other people's nominations if needed. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for the trouble. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK, never seen it before. Will add more later. Tassedethe (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! Debresser (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a small addition to the merge templates, that would display a warning in case they are used on categories. Please see Template_talk:Mergefrom#Merge_templates_on_categories. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I have finished proposing the previously incorrectly tagged categories for nomination, see today's cfd. Debresser (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot that can just remove Template:Cfr-speedy?

Does anyone know of a bot that could go through a list of categories and delete the Template:Cfr-speedy in the categories? A few weeks ago a bunch of categories were speedily renamed, but because someone changed the coding on the Template:Cfr-speedy without telling the bot operators, a few hundred new categories were created with the template still attached. They can be seen here—all of the "Plays by ——" categories need the template deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's my fault, I clean it. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done Debresser (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you're awesome. I didn't realise it was you, but the way—didn't bother to check who had changed it, since I figured it was an innocent oversight. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It was. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canada – United States relations - WTF??

I just noticed the change from Category:Canada-United States relations but can only trace it to CydeBot, which points only to WP:CFD and not to a specific CfD. When was this CFD posted, and was it listed at WP:CANTALK? i.e. "Whose bright idea was this?" Now when adding the category it requires a special dash-character instead of straight hyphen-typing.....categories should be for ease-of-use, not orthographicMoS nitpickery.Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. But incidentally, the page was at Category:Canada–United States relations before, not Category:Canada-United States relations. Nothing has changed but the spaces around the dash per WP:DASH. The latter category has been a redirect since August 2008. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK; I'll keep on using my hyphenated version; I was wondering why that came out a bluelink, given the cat deletion.....I just really dislike cat-names that have to be copy-pasted; see the categories on St'at'imc, Sto:lo and Skwxwu7mesh and understand my frustration at having to Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V these each time I need to use them on an article....bit of a different issue except for typability....Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just been redirecting the redirects, so there might be a few minutes of lag, but they will still be there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-redirects

There are at least two self-redirects on this page, contrary to WP:REDIRECT. I have found Wikipedia:Category deletion and Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. Maybe these should be redirected to an expanded WP:CAT? Mhockey (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy criteria #7

In light of this, I'm adding speedy requirement #7. We can decide if we want to just merge this and make it part of #1, but to start out it's probably useful to have separate. Anyone choosing to nominate or process #7s should be familiar with WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH. Should we require that soft redirects be created? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why soft? Debresser (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno. Soft has always been the standard with categories. I'm not sure if we're clear on it being OK to move to hard yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hard or soft, a redirect should definitely exist for any categories that have a dash in the title. Otherwise it's way too easy to accidentally create duplicates. Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
How many soft redirects? Two, A - B and A-B? Debresser (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted category?

What's the difference, other than the colour of the link, between a category and a deleted category? I ask this because of Category:Rouge admins which, despite having been deleted a while ago, and now appearing in a more appropriate colour, still seems to be functioning perfectly well. Miremare 03:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Red-linked categories just mean the category has yet to be created or was previously deleted. The reason Category:Rouge admins is well populated is because those users chose to keep themselves categorized by retaining the category on their userpages. I'm not aware of any guidelines or policies which disallows such practice, though I don't see it to be too helpful as the obvious barrier of the category not existing and not coming up in the search. — ξxplicit 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
More pedantically, the category still exists, but the category page does not. As long as any pages are declared as being in the category, the category will be in the database, and will be listed (I think) at Special:Categories. You can see the contents of the category by previewing the putative category page without necessarily creating it. (Of course, the fact that there is no page for the category means it can't be made a subcategory of any other category.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice, very nice. It is indeed in Special:Categories as a redlink. Debresser (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the fact that the red colour is so appropriate for it is the best argument for this category page not to be recreated;) --Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I always find the text "You are re-creating a deleted category (page/article)" to have a strong cold shower-effect. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Though am I alone in thinking that the users in the category keeping it "alive" like that, is a little contrary to the spirit of the Cfd where the category was deleted? I mean, presumably consensus wasn't simply on whether the link should be red or blue, but on the function and purpose of the category, both of which seem to remain? :| Miremare 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was about having it as an active part of Wikipedia alone. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that's what I mean, in that it still functions as a category just as it did before. Its only impairment, if Kotniski is correct, is that it doesn't have a page, so can't be a subcategory of something else. Miremare 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally we wouldn't allow pages to belong to a red-linked category (see WP:CAT; either the category page should be created or the category declaration should be removed). But we can indulge people's sense of humour a bit more in user space, it keeps spirits up...--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

En dashes

Since there seems to be some confusion: I created two categories

This page is in the hyphen category.

Category:Test–category

It does not get put in the en-dash category.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

So what does this mean—does it mean we choose between (1) having soft redirects and running the bot to transfer pages which are added to the redirected category and (2) having hard redirects and running the bot to transfer pages which are added to the redirect category? If that's the only difference, having hards seems like the obvious choice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Doing a hard redirect on a category still creates a situation where the redirected category becomes a subcategory of the targeted category. For this reason, I think soft redirects are still appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't - you just need to prefix Category:X with a colon on the redirect page (as I've just done with the test example). (If the bot's doing its stuff, then at some point it will come along and convert the redirect into a soft one, and move this page into the target category - and as you observed in your first comment, the conversion to a soft is unnecessary.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, very nice. I think we should probably just do hards, as long as the bot can be changed to move articles when it's a hard redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, it seems to be working better than described in WP:Category redirect. It should be documented somewhere when creating a hard category redirect is preferable (I guess every category that has a dash in the title will have to have a redirect from the hyphenated title, at least – probably the ones with accented letters as well). So, should {{category redirect}} be deprecated now, if we're going to start using hard redirects? Jafeluv (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Not immediately; the first thing to do (after making sure we have consensus to make the change) would be to contact User:RussBot's owner and ask if it could stop converting hard redirects to soft ones. (I hope there wouldn't be any significant reprogramming involved.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep. After that, I guess, it could start converting them the other way around (soft → hard). That is, once we're positive that the hard redirects are really the way to go. Jafeluv (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't, but I will now. See User talk:R'n'B#Category redirects again.--Kotniski (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Nellie! RussBot can transfer pages that explicitly include categories, but that won't apply to transcluded and generated categories. Specifically:

  1. Maintenance cats/tracking cats/error cats
  2. Content cats included in templates (against advice) such as Infobox comics creator
  3. The entire Project hierarchy
  4. Loads of back end stuff
Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
Oh and it bites newbies too. They add "Article" to "Cat1" which is a redirect to "Cat2", click on "Cat1" at the bottom of the page and then are taken to "Cat 2" which looks exactly like "Cat1" would look, but "Article" isn't there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
I think this last point is fairly minor (we already have advice on each category page that lists may not be totally up to date; we could supplement the page under the explanatory link for that with information about redirect behaviour; redirect information can also be placed on any category page that has other cats redirecting to it, if felt necessary.) As to the first point, what it implies to me is that redirects (of whatever flavour) shouldn't be used for templated categories - is that what you meant?--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes and here we run into problems that several places people have put content categories in templates. Which is wrong on so many levels. Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
Right, that's definitely something that ought to be eliminated. Is there any way of detecting them?--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted category

Can Category:Railway stations in Indore be speedied or should it be brought to CfD again? It was deleted a couple of weeks ago as a result of this, but I can't figure out if there's a G4 equivalent for categories. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the category for speedy deletion. Because it was deleted via the deletion process and is an exact copy, it can be speedied. WP:CSD#G4 applies to any page; it's not limited to article space. — ξxplicit 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Will remember that for the future. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous !voting

Noting that people don't want to separate deletion discussions from others (see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_2009#Proposal._Separate_Categories_for_Deletion_from_Categories_for_Discussion), can I ask that !voters try to avoid !votes such as "delete or rename" with a rationale that doesn't clearly differentiate between rationale for delete and rationale for rename. It can confuse the non-regulars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Often a rename might cure the problems for which the category would otherwise have to be deleted, so the underlying rationale would be the same, simply that the category as it is should not exist. Which is also one of the best reasons not to separate deletion discussions from renaming discussions...many "renames" are in effect deletions accompanied by the creation of a somewhat different category that would hopefully avoid the fatal flaws of the original. Postdlf (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Often a rename acceptable to the nominator would be a far less disruptive option than the increasingly common "Delete or Rename if Kept" approach. The far more productive means would be to start with an acceptable rename and then consider deletion only if consensus can't be reached on a mutually satisfactory name. Alansohn (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If they've actually thought of a possible rename. I doubt many people remain silent if they have one in mind. But not all flawed categories can be cured by renaming, at least not without becoming a completely different category. Then it's really a matter of deleting the current one and separately making a new one with different inclusion criteria. Postdlf (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, a rename might be sensible, but it doesn't necessarily follow that reasons for a rename that fails to win a consensus default to being reasons for deletion, but the structure of the !vote makes it look that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like just an interpretation problem by readers. Presumably the commenters themselves know what they mean, and so long as a closing admin isn't misinterpreting such votes, I don't see a reason to draw bright line distinctions that would restrict the ability of the process from settling on what participants in the discussion view as the "best" solution. Requiring a two-stage procedure would be cumbersome and overly bureaucratic. Oftentimes, a rename will be acceptable to a user, but keeping under the current name would be unacceptable. Thus, "rename or delete". Personally, I don't think it's that difficult to understand. In such discussions where votes go all sorts of directions, it can sometimes be difficult for a closer to identify a consensus. If this is a problem in any given discussion (which is relatively rare), it's worthwhile then at that stage for the closer to say something like: "there is no consensus to delete; I recommend a renomination where we can cite this no consensus to delete and thereafter focus on an appropriate name". Alternatively, if desired, nominators can divide their nomination into two separate sections. A good example of this is here.
I dispute Alansohn's characterization of voting in a CfD as "disruptive", though. That's just wrong. Everyone is entitled to state their opinion, even if it is complex. A demonstration of nuanced thinking does not constitute disruption in the WP sense. Maybe it disrupts other users' sensitivities or sense of control, but it's not WP:DISRUPTION disruption. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, those wanting to rename a category and those wanting to delete it are at least in agreement that the current category should not exist under that name. If a "renamed" category would cure the reasons for deletion (e.g., changing "people who molest children" to "people convicted of child molestation"), you wouldn't need anyone's permission to create the new category anyway, even if the "original" category is deleted outright, because it wouldn't be a recreation.
I agree that "disruption" is an inappropriate accusation to make here. Postdlf (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
While I do appreciate the attention to my comments, I have never called voting at CfD "disruptive". Even the simplest reading of what I stated above would make clear that if an acceptable rename would address the nominator's issue, there are far less disruptive means than advocating for deletion and I dispute the rather blatant misinterpretation. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're not wanting to be misunderstood I think you need to explain a bit more clearly what you mean, because even based on your re-statement I read it to mean that if someone votes to delete a category when the nominator has suggested a rename, the vote for deletion is disruptive. If you say "there are far less disruptive means", you are suggesting that the chosen action is at least to some degree disruptive. This may not be what you meant to imply; if not, maybe you should rephrase without using the word "disruption" or "disruptive", which as you know has a particular meaning on WP. (A misunderstanding or lack of clear communication is not "blatant misrepresentation" either, but I suppose that's another issue and unfortunately par for the course, even for Fuzzy Zoeller.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Particularly given that "disruption" has a particular meaning on Wikipedia as a judgment of bad conduct, it's a word to use with caution and restraint if you don't want to be misunderstood as accusing others of WP:DISRUPTION. I still have no idea what else you could have intended if that's not what you meant, because your explanation just repeated the same words. Postdlf (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_say_CfD_is_broken, it is reasonable to conclude that the closer was confused by the interspersed variety of statements under "delete" or "rename". If the comments can confuse a reader, then there is a problem.. It is not OK to blame the reader for poor communication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to ask the closer. Based on the closing statement and the discussion on his page, I see no sign that he was confused. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
How would have you closed the discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have, since I participated. I'm far too biased to offer an unbiased assessment. But if you really want to know, here we have a normal welding blowtorch ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for fictional whatevers

There are way too many of these categories. I've spent the last hour cleaning up overuse of these categories amongst fictional characters in Power Rangers, where some characters were listed as "Fictional mass murderers" or "Fictional rock musicians" (when neither is the case as far as I can tell for the characters I removed these categories from). There should be some sort of clean up for all of these ridiculous categories, like Category:Fictional bojutsu practitioners.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If the article does not provide any basis for the category, it should be removed. That's an easy one. As far as which categories for fictional characters should or shouldn't exist, that tends to get fought over quite a bit. Depending on what kind of articles are mostly populating them, you might take it up with a relevant wikiproject (like WP:COMICS) to see if there's consensus that the category is unnecessary, or just post it to CFD and then we'll all have a good-natured brawl about it. But the first two examples you give though seem comparatively uncontroversial, as long as there's a meaningful working definition of "mass murderer," and as long as "rock musician" is not including every character ever depicted playing a guitar. Marty McFly's music-playing is a pretty big plot point in Back to the Future, for example. There are also plenty of articles in Category:Animated musical groups that belong in that category as well. As for the bojutsu category, at first glance most of the included characters are notably depicted "stick-fighting"; in many cases, it's their defining characteristic (how else do you tell the TMNT apart, if not by their weapons? the B&W comics certainly didn't have colored headbands). If it turns out that martial-arts themed characters are getting dozens of such fighting style categories dumped on them, then it might be time to evaluate that, however. Postdlf (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dashes in category names and possible impacts

In this deletion discussion, HotCat (and maybe AWB) apparently does not 'know' about category redirects. So it allows users to easily place entries in the 'wrong' category. While any bot that does cleanup should be able to cleanup, as the implementation of the above consensus expands it could create a larger workload on the bots. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How about just bringing the "above consensus" to a wider venue with an eye to reversing the silly decision? –xenotalk 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please, for the love of ralph, no. Let the debate rest for awhile. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Let it rest while folks go about putting in hard-to-type dashes in category names? It'll be too late then... –xenotalk 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. It's just that we went through all of this. Numerous times. Yes, they are hard to type for some. I believe that was considered, though. Whatever, though. Anyone can raise it again, but one of these days maybe we'll actually decide to choose a style guide and stick with it. ... The uncertainty makes is damn hard to implement one way or the other, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a bug filed for a technical solution? Treating all dashes the same in categories, for example? –xenotalk 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Personally, I'll work on implementing whatever form is chosen. But it's frustrating to have a lack of clarity one way or the other on this, and it's been unclear forever, and only in the past week have we seen any sort of "settled" solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I just think that a non-publicized (afaik?) discussion on this fairly low-trafficked page isn't consensus for a change that is going to annoy editors the wiki-over. –xenotalk 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You'd have to ask Black Falcon how widely he publicized it. I know he placed notifications at the talk pages of WP:MOS and WP:CAT at least; possibly a village pump notice too, but I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anything. I did find this discussion which was at VPP, that had the opposite result. And that's a central venue. If the above discussion was only mentioned to editors who hang out at WP:MOS, then it's obvious why the result came down the way it did. Should have been on CENT, VPP, etc. –xenotalk 22:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In my reading, much of the underlying concern in both discussions is the idea/concern that category redirects do not "work" like other normal redirects. In the later discussion, there seems to be the suggestion that there is now no reason why they cannot work the same, and we can change all soft redirects to hard. If that's the case, the issue becomes somewhat more moot (though not completely, of course). I just wish it would be one way or the other—either use no special characters in category names or use any special character in category names. I see the least amount of benefit in going back to how it's always been—no standard at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's another reason implementation of hard redirects on categories would be beneficial. When a hard redirect exists and the redirected category is added with hot cat, it automatically changes the applied category to the category that is the target of the redirect. (Though I wouldn't worry too much about "overworking" the bot that does these. It's a bot.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case (I don't know, I've never used HotCat) then it sounds like yet another good reason to go over to hard redirects. I don't see what this issue has to do with dashes and hyphens (nor why the use of dashes in category names should concern significant numbers of people).--Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure either why this is such a "big deal". It seems to me that hard redirects would assist greatly not just with hyphen/dashes but with ALL non-standard characters in category names, of which there are many. This would be true whether or not hotcat is in use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The two issues are separate. But the soft redirects are, in a way, better, because the article end up with the correct (target) category on its page, or is flagged in a tracking category if that isn't possible. If hard redirects were implemented so that the member page showed up in the target category, the risks of the redirected category page being deleted for being empty arise. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
But it's not being suggested that we should simply switch to hard redirects without reprogramming the bot. Once the bot is reprogrammed, hard redirects will provide all the same features that soft ones do now. And obviously, redirected categories aren't going to be deleted just for being empty, as long as the admins doing the deletion know that they might be deliberate redirects.--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see either of the issues raised by Rich Farmbrough as being relevant considerations, since obviously the bot would be changed and hard redirected categories could be automatically tagged the way softs are now so that they wouldn't be deleted. If we assume things would generally work the same with these background issues, is there any good reason to stick with soft redirects? The more I hear about the issue the more I'm convinced that we've stuck with soft redirects mainly out of inertia, and not really for any other compelling reason. Hard redirects are not perfect, but neither are soft ones. Hard ones certainly are no worse at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no other reasons for not switching (at least, not from the participants here) I've started a proposal to make the change. It's at WP:Hard category redirects. Please comment or edit the proposal if I've made any omissions. Once it's tidy we can RfC it to a wider audience.--Kotniski (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The RFC on switching to hard redirects is now open; please see WP:Hard category redirects and discuss on that talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename - Criterion 4

relisted here from archive, since it seems there is emerging consensus

I was idly musing on speedy rename criteria (yup, slow day...) when I came across a comment of Debresser's in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 25#Aircraft carriers by navy. The essential issue in that debate seems to be the non-conformance of a number of categories with the general convention for subcats of Category:Aircraft carriers by navy. In connection with this he said: "In my opinion this should be a speedy criteria...".

This is a fairly uncontroversial rename, so why not speediable? My reading of the speedy criteria and of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) leads me to think that this is not currently covered. While a speedy close could potentially come within the ambit of IAR and being BOLD, are there any views on the up and down sides of amending CSD to allow for speedy renames of categories in clear non-conformance with established naming schemes (not simply those outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories))? Or am I simply being too restrictive in my interpretation of the speedy rename criteria as they stand?

Xdamrtalk 18:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Local usage or variants of English usage. If you look through the history of closes, you will see that we commonly grant exceptions when there may be some local reason to not use the common form. I believe that last one was for usage in New Zealand. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it is very sensible to have a speedy criteria that allows for renaming a relatively minor number of categories that deviate in minor details from the naming convention of a parent category. If there are exceptions (such as those mentioned by the previous editor), then they should go to wp:cfd. We are making rules. There will always be exceptions. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We used to fairly routinely allow this type of thing to sneak through speedy renames based on #4. But then we had an incident where an editor got quite upset that we had done so, and the user argued that #4 only covered those that were enumerated in the conventions. He was right, of course. Since then I at least have been careful not to process any speedily unless they meet a criterion fairly squarely. That's also when the 4 "do not use speedy" negative criteria were created, and #4 of those essentially eliminates what we were doing before. I'd be willing to go back—just providing the background on why this is how it is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's it - I knew that something like that had existed 'back in the day'. I must have been on my 18 month break when the change was made. Personally I'd be happy to go back to the way things were. There really is no point in foisting an artificial 7 day wait (plus the time it takes for an admin to actually get around to closing the debate) on what are invariably uncontroversial renames.
Xdamrtalk 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would just start trying to put these through speedily. If no one objects to the individual nominations, I won't. There was no policy change per se, I (and maybe some other editors) just became more gun-shy about processing things on that page. There's still the chance that someone might object, but it probably won't happen in most cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That won't work, because there are those who regularly bring rename proposal from speedy to the regular Cfd for the simple stated reason that "fits none of the speedy criteria". So better make it an official one. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking personally, I would feel fine speedy closing any full Cfd nom which fell squarely within this area. --Xdamrtalk 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It can work, because it's worked before. I suggest you try some and see what happens. If they all get stopped, then we may need to rethink.
The reason having an "official" criterion is problematic in this case is a definitional one. It's a slippery slope issue—often times it's a judgment call if (problematic terms in quotes) something: (1) does not conform with an "established" "convention"; and/or (2) is an "uncontroversial" change. I would need to see a proposed criterion definition; I think it may be difficult to come up with one that is unambiguous enough but at the same time not too restrictive to allow those through of the type that we're talking about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I hardly ever propose something on Cfd, so perhaps you could do it. Drawing up the criteria seems easy: "A reordering of words or substitution of adjetives or addition of related words, or combination thereof, not changing the intent of the category, which makes the category name conform with the absolute majority of other categories in a parent category". That should be good enough. After all, there is a guideline somewhere not to be too precise. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a reputation on CfD for being an ass, and some editors enjoy disagreeing with me, so I may not be your best vehicle. Are you saying this should replace #4, be a further definition for #4 to add to what is already there, or be a new criterion entirely? I think it would best work as an add on to #4 (i.e., be part of #4), but that's just what I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, let me tell you I wasn't aware of your reputation, nor do I share this particular point of view. I hope this is not an indication that I am considered another one of those. :) As to the question. I think this could replace 4, since it is more inclusive. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
"I hope this is not an indication that I am considered another one of those." It's not, because if you were, users would tell you repeatedly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend adding an example to the formulation above. For clarity. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
In terms of a formulation, how about ultra simplicity? "'A rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree". This basically encapsulates what we are driving for, while at the same time allowing a degree of flex by not being too prescriptive. I don't think an exhaustive definition will be easily reached - we could always amend this one in light of experience once it has been up and running for a few days. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether this replaces 4, or whether it constitutes a new criterion. I suppose replacement is a logical choice with this 'expansive' wording given that it does effectively subsume 4's rationale.
Xdamrtalk 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that formulation is also fine with me. I would still give an example, of course, just to be sure the rule is understood. For me, it remains clear that this rule comes to broaden (and therefore replace) #4. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we use that one and test drive it for a bit. Any problems that result can be raised here and we could reconsider. We'd also have to get rid of (or at least rephrase) "when not to use speedy" #4. Just eliminating the part that says, "regardless of whether or not the proposed change will bring the category into conformity with existing categories" should do the trick. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above conversation, do you think it's safe to alter #4 right now? Or does this need to be more formally proposed somehow? It's not really that big of a change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to go I think... --Xdamrtalk 11:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Just adding my agreement, I have a couple of candidates waiting. Tassedethe (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think my support is obvious. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


I've gone ahead and made the amendments. CSD 4 has been changed to:

"A rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)."

I've also added a two sub-clauses to CSD 4:

1. "This criterion should only be applied when there is absolutely no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. Any suggested renames falling short of this standard should be brought forward for a full Cfd nomination."
2. "This criterion should not be used in the face of accepted differences in local usage (for example Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom)." (per Vegaswikian's comment above)

I've altered 'when not to use speedy', removing No.3 (redundant given that we are now accepting de facto standards, which may well be derived from a WikiProject) and altering No.4 to be the general 'not' catch-all - "When proposing a change that does not qualify under any of the specified criteria above."

I think that that is pretty much in line with the consensus here?

Xdamrtalk 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what is the view on 'not' criterion 1? At present it reads that CSD should not be used "...when proposing that the category name should be reformatted in addition to one of the speedy criteria." Perhaps I'm being unusually dense, but I can't quite work out the meaning or intent. Can anyone help me out? So far as I can understand it, it also seems to be redundant given the changes to CSD 4. For that matter, now I look at the entire 'not' section more closely, is there any real need for it any more? We now have a sort of carte blanche to rename categories to follow the conventions of their tree. Does this expansion not now deprive the 'not' section of its raison d'etre (which was chiefly to restrict CSD from being used to enforce conventions)?
Xdamrtalk 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Non-criterion #1 seems rather even in contradiction to the changed criterion #4. Non-criterion #3 was pretty redundant from the beginning... #2 is still usefull, but should be ammended to make clear "unless such is the established naming conventions for that category tree, as specified in criterion #4 above". Furthermore, where is my example? I really think we need an example. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
So far as 'not' criterion 2 goes, any alteration between eg 'United Kingdom' and 'British' wouldn't even begin to qualify as a speedy unless it was according to a category convention as per CSD 4. If the category convention is to use 'British', then use 'British' - if it is to use 'United Kingdom', then use 'United Kingdom' - trying to speedy a change to 'British' when 'United Kingdom' is the convention blatantly fails CSD 4's test. I don't think we'd lose much by removing that whole section (apart from the present No.3 - the old No.4).
Xdamrtalk 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. And I happened to walk into just the right guinea pig: Category:Diesel locomotives of Belgium. Now let's see. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that one probably wasn't the best to try it out on, seeing as how the related discussion is ongoing. BTW, I'm fine with the removal of the "when not to use" section. I admit it was always a bit redundant, but it was created in the context of there being a large flood of nominations at speedy that didn't qualify at all and a large degree of confusion among some users about when it could and could not be used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that one turned out unlucky. But anyway. Creating warnings in view of temporary behavior is a usual problem on Wikipedia. But now we should perhaps indeed get rid of it. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Gone. The CSD criteria are listed both at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria and at WP:CSD - I've synced both versions. It would be best maintenance-wise if we could just make edits on one single set of criteria and have that update across both locations, but I couldn't work out how best to do this. In the meantime, it's something to bear in mind if any further edits are made to the criteria. --Xdamrtalk 10:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD

I think that the text in Wikipedia:CSD#Categories is that very same {{Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria}}, so I don't understand why you had to update it twice. Debresser (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It has the same text because I updated WP:CSD to match the changes made to the CFD speedy page. Something to bear in mind if any further alterations are made once we've test-driven these changes for a bit. --Xdamrtalk 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I mean, why not merge Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria and Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria? Debresser (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That sounds sensible to me. I don't know why we have so many separate pages for these things.--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - makes far more sense. I suppose the ideal solution is to insert the categories section from CSD into the "Speedy renaming and speedy merging" section on WP:CFD. That way there is only one 'authoritative' statement of the speedy criteria. Anyone fancy tackling it? --Xdamrtalk 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, someone please do it. I've updated the list a few times and each time I've forgotten to do both. I'm not technically savvy enough to make it happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at it. It would be a fairly simple job to transclude Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria to the 'Categories' section of CSD. That would mean that all edits to category criteria would be to Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria - the CSD page would have no actual category-related content, merely a transclusion link. I'm a little ambivalent about this - my feeling is that CSD, as a core policy page, should hold the source version. The trouble is that I can't really see any easy way to transclude just the categories section of CSD, to get the result I outlined above (at least not without a horrendous bodge - rather like the way we currently link WP:CFD/W's 'discussions to be closed' section to the CFD main page). Anyone else have any ideas to get this working?
Xdamrtalk 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Theatres in the United States

Hi! As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 25#Category:Theatres in the United States I'm trying to tag all categories for a proposed move. Please help me do so. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother... Debresser (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
"I wouldn't bother"? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#How_to_use_this_page instructs nominators to place a request for help in the case of nominations with large amounts of daughter articles. The users of this page are obligated to help with this request. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As with all things on wp, no one is obliged to help with anything at all. That doesn't mean that people don't help out with requests like this, merely that they are under absolutely no obligation to. What I think Debresser was driving at was that this proposed rename looks like it is going to end up, at best, as a 'No Consensus'. This basically means that all the work and time spent on tagging all these categories is likely to end up wasted. Nothing personal, I'm sure, but no one wants to spend hours of their life making edits in the almost certain realisation that they will soon be reversed.
Xdamrtalk 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Xdamr said: "Nothing personal, I'm sure, but no one wants to spend hours of their life making edits in the almost certain realisation that they will soon be reversed." - Whether the nomination succeeds or does not, the templates are removed anyway. Unless it is a hopeless WP:SNOWBALL nomination, whether it is a keep or a delete, the templates stay for the same amount of time.
As for consensus in general, I would like to say this:
Wikipedia:Consensus says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Just because a bunch of people oppose this doesn't mean that there will be no consensus.
The arguments presented so far have not sufficiently addressed my case, and I will claim that there is consensus because the arguments made against the thoroughly researched nominator's rationale (which I wrote) are inadequate. I have pointed out logical errors and problems in all of the opposing posts.
If no substantial developments come, I will tell the closing administrator that he should consider the merits of the arguments presented; because WP:ENGVAR is a guideline that should be followed in this instance. A "no consensus" closure in this discussion would be inappropriate and unacceptable.
Wikipedia is not a vote. Building consensus means that the correct arguments win against the incorrect arguments. I told the oppose side what it needed to do to bring this to a no consensus. So far my case still stands.
If no substantial developments come, the only logical and correct outcome will be consensus in favor of moving.
I would also like for Debresser to revisit his own post in the discussion; he provided no explanation and no supporting evidence for his post, so his post does not factor in the consensus decision-making process. His post says "WhisperToMe is right, but Hmains is even more right. That is to say, his argument is the more relevant one." - It does not explain which arguments he is referring to, nor does it have any supporting evidence for why this would be the case. Which arguments? Why would Hmains's argument be more relevant than WhisperToMe's argument?
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Right then, poor wording on my part. What I meant to say was: "nothing personal, I'm sure, but no one wants to spend hours of their life making edits in the almost certain realisation that they will be to absolutely no effect or consequence." (ie a Keep or No Consensus ending) As for the rest, some interesting points, but it really belongs in the debate itself, not here.
Xdamrtalk 10:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll post the statement maybe 1-2 days before the closing of the discussion, unless someone presents evidence that contradicts mine. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And sure enough, the situation has changed. I explained in the discussion itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Help explain

Could anybody here help me give an answer on Template_talk:Merge#Instruction_creep? Debresser (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:CatDiffuse

FYI, {{CatDiffuse}} has been nominated for deletion. See WP:TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 28

70.29.209.91 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC on category hard redirects

There's an RFC open on replacing soft redirects with hard redirects, see WP:Hard category redirects ; the discussion is on the talk page.

70.29.209.91 (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible out-of-process category move

A 'bot has emptied the contents of Category:Railway workshops in Great Britain into a new category Category:Railway workshops in the United Kingdom, that was recently created by the 'bot's owner.

I think that this is an out-of-process move, and I would like to know what the procedure is for an action like this. Thanks Iain Bell (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As with anything else that happens on Wikipedia, the first step should be to discuss it with the bot's owner on his talk page to see his explanation. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head, this move would be covered by speedy rename criterion 4. Given that the move was from Great Britain (a territorial designation) to United Kingdom (the country), this rename brings that category into line with Category:Railway workshops and its "Railway workshops in country" form. Of course what should have happened was for this to be listed for speedy rename at WP:CFD for 48h so that any objections could be raised. Probably simply a case of an editor being bold, though, per postdlf, the first (and best) course of action is to approach the editor concerned first.
Xdamrtalk 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate or otherwise adjust speedy criterion #6

There is an ongoing village pump discussion about this here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Limit to speedy nominations

I'd like to propose a limit to speedy nominations, given the vast number I am currently having to edit. 30 20 a day seems entirely reasonable. Hiding T 12:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is growing, the number of articles is growing, the number of categories is growing, the number of editors involved in Cfd is growing (and a good thing that is), so the number of speedy nominations will only grow. In view of all this, imposing a limit is not logical. Other ways have to be found to lower the workload. Like finding more interested admins, or allowing non-admins to do certain jobs. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Like Debresser, I don't see a huge need for this. I would say probably 99% of speedy nominations go through, and usually it's just a matter of an admin adding a list of proposals to WP:CFDW and the bot does the rest. Occasionally there is a swath that are opposed and require some manual processing, as Hiding as done recently, but this is an exception and I don't think it warrants the creation of an arbitrary limit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to add my agreement with Debresser and Good Ol’factory. I don't think that an arbitrary limit is particularly helpful. I see the number of nominations, both full and speedy, vary day by day, week by week. Either way I don't think it is to the advantage of the encyclopaedia to artificially limit the work that can be accomplished. I think the core issue is the lack of wider admin involvement here. It just takes a few days absence by one or two individuals here for the entire process to build up huge backlogs and grind to a halt.
Xdamrtalk 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And why is it that admins tend to stop processing here? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Do they? Debresser (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The only Cfd closer I can recall stopping recently was User:Jafeluv, who passed his RFA, started doing some excellent work here, then suddenly gave up the tools and left. Did you have anyone else in mind? --Xdamrtalk 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, admins do drop out or fade out. I'm not sure that recently is the valid criteria. Over the past two years or so, there have been many closers who have stopped or reduced their activity. Some of the ones I recall are Mike Selinker, Vegaswikian, Black Falcon, Kbdank71, Angus McLellan. I'm sure that I missed many more. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that this is a general Wikipedia characteristic. I even read somewhere that the mean period Wikipedians stay active is 1½ years. Debresser (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I know why some (though not all) of the above closers have stopped regularly closing discussions. There is a common reason I am aware of; and it is a very narrow reason, you might say. It has resulted from the actions of one Wikipedian, in fact. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I have Absolutely No Idea to Whom or What you might be referring. Ha(!). --Xdamrtalk 12:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's right, it's You. ... I've said Too Much already. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Turn CfD upside down

Just as per Wikipedia_talk:MFD#Turn_MfD_upside_up., I think the order of the page should be reversed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there "My intuition and your intuition are at odds. I find the present build just fine, intuitively speaking. This is completely subjective." Debresser (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I too actually find the current set-up more intuitive because it conforms with the way WP logs (recent changes/page history/user contributions, etc.) structure information—with the most recent changes at the top. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Much the same suggestion/complaint has been made about recent changes. Things in the last sixty seconds get looked at by multiple patrollers, but when something slips for several minutes, it languishes. There is sense in logs being bottom to top. I would expect that people ussed to the page would find it intuitive the way is has been for so long, but it is not simply subjective, it depends on past experience.
  • I think things should be formatted to help the newcomer. The current set up of these pages asks the newcomer to read from the top down, but then at the "active discussions" line, there is an underlying assumption that you have already read from the bottom up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...it is not simply subjective, it depends on past experience." Past experience is one thing that contributes to subjective opinions. I'm not clear on the distinction. Are you equating subjectivity with arbitrariness? I don't think they are the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that your liklihood of liking something the way it is is increased by the amount that you have used it. You have become accustomed. There is a selection bias (if it doesn't work for you, you tend to go elsewhere). I suggest putting yourself in the shoes of a newcomer (you do want newcomers to come here?). I probably misuse the words "subjective" and "objective". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that past experience leads to subjective preferences, but I see this as an almost wholly subjective matter of preference. I wouldn't be surprised if users who have their email formatted to have newest messages at the top will likely prefer this format, and vice versa. In a matter such as this I don't think any person's opinion is any more valid than any other person's. For that reason, I'm very interested in what others think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Experience is part of what forms the subjective likes and dislikes of a person. BTW, wp:ani and related pages work the other way around, and I find that counter-intuitive, and am anoyed by the need to scroll down a whole page before I get to add my commentaries. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally I am content with things the way they are. It seems more intuitive (to me at least) to have the most recent changes brought quickly to your notice as you check the page throughout the day - in this case by means of their being at the top of the page with the older entries (already seen) towards the bottom. Either way though, the question of whether the newest or the oldest entry is at the top becomes largely irrelevant after 24h and the start of the new day. At this point the order of the page is frozen in the daily log.
Xdamrtalk 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories of university alumni by subject

I have a feeling that CFD has tended to delete "alumni by subject" categories, such as the newly-created Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by subject of study and its sub-categories. Can anyone confirm or deny? BencherliteTalk 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only confirm that I would vote for deletion any time. I think that alumni per university is specific enough. To differentiate for subjects would be a case of overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Debresser. As far as I know, we've never encountered the combination of area of study and specific school before. We've consistently deleted categories for people who have a specific academic degree or who studied a particular subject in school, but I've never seen it specified by university. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three alumni subcategories for this one university: Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by college, Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by degree, Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by subject of study. So previously anyone who was just categorized with one alumni category would now have three for the same institution, and more if they earned multiple degrees or changed their "subject of study." Those latter two will also largely duplicate occupation categories. My non-notable (though lovely and talented) wife and I have five degrees between us, so you can imagine how these could rack up on notable people. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Increasing openness and transparency

Discussion copied from Category talk:Wikipedians working to improve CfD for wider community awareness and comment. --Xdamrtalk 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike virtually all other XfD processes, editors are often completely unaware of the fact that a category has been targeted for deletion or renaming. While articles nominated for deletion have a rather large and unmissable message posted at the top of the article and images and templates are noted when they are up for deletion wherever they appear, no one would ever know that a category is up for deletion unless they view the category itself. One of the best ways to provide some measure of transparency, to foster greater participation and to help ensure that CfD results reflect actual consensus of the community as a whole is to make a genuine effort to make the Wikipedia community aware of the categories up for discussion. This could be done, among other ways, by displaying a CfD message and link in all those articles and categories wherever those categories under discussion are displayed. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with this as a broad principle - I think that it certainly works for Tfd, so why not here? Bearing in mind the technical differences between categories and (for example) templates, how do you suggest it would be implemented? --Xdamrtalk 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks a good idea. I suppose a bot would be needed, to leave messages on the talk pages of all pages belonging to a category that's being discussed (subject to some kind of numerical limit).--Kotniski (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The way it works on Tfd is that a tiny line is added above the template, informing that the template is under discussion.
However I doubt whether this is technically possible for categories as well. It would probably ask for changes in the MediaWiki software. Informing all talkpages of tagged articles is serious overkill in my opinion. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with the TfD solution is that the change doesn't show up on the watchlists of people watching the target pages - they only get the message if they happen to view the page. So a bot solution would work better in fact - but I agree that if huge numbers of pages were involved, it wouldn't be worth it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A big problem we have now at CfD is underkill. Unless you look at the category page or have it on your watchlist, you have no way of knowing that the category may be targeted for deletion. Just as articles, templates and images are all tagged as being at XfD on every article on which it appears, we need to follow this standard to ensure that similar global awareness is generated for categories. There appears to be no valid reason why categories should be an exception and the paucity of participants from the Wikipedia community as a whole who have an interest in the category is almost certainly due to this lack of notice. If MediaWiki software needs to be changed to help create a measure of much-needed openness, so be it. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. We have a tentative consensus of four editors. Perhaps we should post a notice on the Village pump to see if there is general consensus outside Cfd as well. If there is, then let's do something about it. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Clearly the optimal solution would be to have, once a category is nominated, a note appear next to all instances of that categorisation within articles - rather like Tfd does with templates. So far so good. Problem is that we can't do that at the moment. I don't think anyone here is standing in the way of making this improvement to the Mediawiki software, the trouble is that this level of technicality is well above all our pay grades. Perhaps we could formalise a proposal for a feature request?
Xdamrtalk 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If a software change would function to append a deletion notice to the category tag itself, at the bottom of the article, that seems fine to me, as long as it wouldn't otherwise interfere with the article content. In the meantime, a talk page notice isn't a bad idea, provided that it's bot-implemented. But we should actually check that the WP community as a whole wants article talk pages to be bothered with these notifications. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the WP community needs to be "bothered", in order to encourage them to become aware of categories and how they affect the pages they are interested in. A bot note on a talk page is a small thing. If so many notices happen that it annoys editors watching the page, then those watchers are overlooking the addition and and changes to too many ill-considered categories.
Outside mainspace there is even less justification in discussing categories without informing those interested in the pages catagorised.
I don't think this applies to what's call "speedy renames". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I for one wouldn't want to be bothered. There's enough imortant things going on on talkpages that have a more direct relation to the articles. We shouldn't overestimate the importance of Cfd. The general editor of an article doesn't really care that much, nor should he. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Debresser may be right. The most common complaint I hear about Cfd is that it's kind of boring because most of the proposals there are relatively uncontroversial "clean-up"-type nominations. If there is going to be a talk page template added every time a category is nominated at Cfd, the notices are quickly going to be perceived by the vast majority of users as "junk mail" notices. As long as everyone is OK with that, I don't see a particular harm in proceeding, but I think there might be disappointment if we see that participation numbers are not influenced by the application of these notices. Note that Tfd has a much smaller participation rate than Cfd, and Tfd has a "better" notification system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, you wouldn't want to notify every page for every lengthening of a dash. But I don't think a contested deletion discussion is OK to close without notifications. Just because some merges and renames are controversial doesn't mean that deletions shouldn't have a high threshold of notification required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine to err on the side of caution, but it does run the risk of the notices becoming "the boy who cried wolf"—they may just be ignored by users as they learn that Cfd is boring. I'm just saying it may be far from a panacea—it may in fact be a lot of work and hassle with very little payback. As long as no one expects the world ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Right now, CfD discussions are systematically ignored by the community as a whole, mainly because no one knows that they are taking place, even those with a direct interest in the category. I have participated in many AfD, FfD, TfD (and other Xfd) discussions solely because I saw the deletion notice while scanning or patrolling through articles. While there is the ever-present possibility that there will not be a single new editor showing up to participate at CfD despite our best efforts, I think that making a genuine effort of reaching out and tagging articles regarding proposed category deletions is an effort that is worth taking and long overdue. I don't expect the world, but I haven't found the world either in our existing CfD environment. Alansohn (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, a lot of chat about the 'wider community' here - good stuff. Perhaps it's time to draw this to their attention? We seem to have reached some conclusions here: 1) That changing the Mediawiki software as detailed above would be a Good Thing, and 2) always placing notifications on the talk pages of categorised articles might be a Bad Thing, essentially turning into a form of spam. Anyone fancy formulating these positions into something we can put up at WP:VP or turn into an Rfc?
Xdamrtalk 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted at Village pump to take the wider community's temperature on whether they want the talk page notices. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see where this would cause a massive number of watchlist notices if put in place. I don't know that I need to see a few hundred pages hit my watchlist for the same proposal, but I do need to be notified. Just a question on the software side of this (as I am no programmer), but would it be easier to add categories to watchlists in the same manner that talk pages are automatically included? I'm not even sure if talk pages created after-the-fact are currently added to watchlists - i.e. I watch a page without a talk page, someone later creates that talk page to add a WP Banner. Does that talk page automatically show up in my watchlist? If that is the way things work, it might be easier to do something similar for categories so that editors would automatically have categories on all their watched pages be added to their watchlists. Then the notifications on the cat pages would be seen by a far wider audience without overwhelming the watchlists and potentially missing other edits that need to be seen. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea. I only have a few categories on my watchlist, but I'd like to be notified of changes for many more. I've never got around to adding them though. An automatic system would be a big help. An opt-in or opt-out option would probably be desirable.
Another possibility would be adding a discreet notice to the article, like the {{ffdc}} template for images. Maybe this wouldn't be worthwhile for minor typographical changes like hyphens, but I'd appreciate a notice like this for discussions of category deletions or mergers. -- Avenue (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the ideal solution, but it would need software changes. At the moment images and templates are dynamically placed on the page as the page is rendered. All that is present within the article itself is a pointer to the template/image's location, so that when the page is displayed the template/image can be found and inserted into place in the article. The difference with categories is that each instance of categorisation is 'hard-wired' into the article itself, existing independently of all other instances. So whereas inserting an Xfd note into a template or image will dynamically show up in all articles which display it, to achieve the same notice with a category means editing each and every article which references it.
Xdamrtalk 15:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the problem is that not enough categories are on watchlists. Some possible ways of changing this:
  • Add them virtually: Editors can choose whether they want to see all changes to categories used on pages they are watching. Needs change to the server software, and may take a bit too much computation time to be feasible.
  • Add them when an editor touches them: Editors can choose which of the following edits adds a category to their watchlist: Adding the category to a page, removing the category from a page, editing a page with the category on it. Needs simpler(?) change to the server software.
  • Create and advertise a tool for adding category pages to the watchlist. E.g. "Add all categories of this page to watchlist", "Add all subcategories to this watchlist".
  • Tie categories and articles together for watchlist purposes in the same way that articles and their talk pages are tied together. I.e. if you watch an article and there is a category of the same name, you are watching it as well. Needs simple(?) change to the server software.
  • Similar, but tie a category together with its main article, even if it has a different name. Needs change to the server software.
  • Encourage editors to edit category pages. This would be potentially the easiest and most elegant solution, but I can't think of a good incentive. Hans Adler 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Another idea I should have thought of earlier, but realized while doing some WikiProject maintainance: involve the WikiProjects. Many WikiProjects use Wikipedia:Article alerts to centralize notification of important processes affecting pages within their scope. AA does monitor CfD and provide links to discussions. The current problem is that very few categories have talk pages appropriately populated with WikiProject banners. I know that there are some editors who object to the creation of talk pages just for the placement of banners, but this would bring many more eyes to the process. It can be done now, and it involves no programming changes. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If this is indeed so, then I think that would be a good reason to create a talkpage. If this could reach editors of a project related to the Cfd, that would be very good. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't always that the talk pages don't exist— the talk pages of categories, templates, and images that only contained a WikiProject banner have been mass-deleted quite a number of times. I've uncovered this time and time again while tagging categories, templates, and images. Most often a CSD G6 was the reason given in the deletion log but I occasionally saw other (unusual) CSD reasons. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's silly. I don't see any reasonable basis for deleting talk pages that have Wikiproject tags. I'll be happy to undelete any you can point out. postdlf (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The rationale was that the WikiProject banners were unimportant and nothing but "clutter" on talk pages where no discussion would ever take place. I doubt the same admins would delete them again now, but who knows... It usually isn't worth requesting them to be restored as they are easily recreated (and of course a G6 does not preclude recreation). --Tothwolf (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename #6 has been discontinued

Just a note on the recent controversy over speedy rename criterion #6 (matching un-disambiguated subcategories to disambiguated parents). There was a discussion at Village Pump about this—only 5 editors really expressed views, and the views were fairly evenly split on retention vs. elimination, so because a lack of consensus for the speedy criterion has been manifest, #6 has been discontinued. I was hoping for a bit more input so we could determine if there was a real controversy or if it was just 2 editors who didn't like it, but based on the comments I think we need to say there's no strong consensus for it, and the speedy criteria require a quite a strong consensus to retain their legitimacy. All the "Georgia" → "Georgia (U.S. state)" ones and similar will have to be put through full discussion now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider discussions over there that great of an indicator since they are so hard to follow. If we are going to make a decision like this, we need to have a discussion on a page so that everyone interested can follow along and join in. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A more specific discussion has been taking place, and at least in that instance, it is clear to see that enough opposition to the proposed #6 exists that it is scarcely suitable as a speedy criterion, as these are meant to be criteria of little or no dispute. That does not mean that such disambiguation is not sometimes wise, or even essential, but it cannot be assumed to be desirable in each and every case, which is the point of speedy changes. Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the issue will arise again when some are nominated for full and it can always be raised again here in the future. I agree that the Village Pump discussions are quite ineffective at encouraging participation, which is ironically the opposite of what they are intended to accomplish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy renames reflect streamlining of procedure in cases of uncontroversial practice - nothing more, nothing less. While I agree that the VP discussion has left matters a little clouded, I think that a consistent line of full Cfd nominations, decided in accordance with No.6, should be enough to restore it to the list. If the day-to-day practice of Cfd nods these through without major drama then, with due respect to the VP discussion, I think that that is the operative factor in determining CSD-worthiness.
Xdamrtalk 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Even more so. I am not sure of the validity of such a discussion, without any input from regular Cfd participants. Why wasn't there a link to it here? I think it should be restored for the moment. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a link to it posted here. See above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops. 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Endless bombardment of new categories?

Is there some reason that WP:OVERCAT is often ignored? Overlapping, duplicate and odd combination categories. Just ridiculous overkill. Apathy, or no patrol? Does any attempted oversight get done or is it mostly a matter of trying to catch newly-created categories and bulking them for CfD? Even then, I see very groups being taken out, but it would be hundreds of CfDs a day without more control. Even while typing this I have 8 hits as new categories listed in Huggle. ...Make that 11. It looks as bad as if new articles had no patrol. 13. I'm getting depressed just casually browsing, so how do you manage and why isn't there any sizable help? 14. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think everything on WP often gets ignored, including all guidelines (and policy requirements) for new articles. This is much less a problem for new articles than for new categories. Inadequate articles can get speedy deleted under a number of criteria, redundant articles (or dependent subtopics) can be easily merged and redirected, and the remainder can be AfD'd or tagged for cleanup and then ignored. But fundamentally, inadequate articles don't deface other articles, while inadequate categories interfere with the operation of adequate ones and clutter and mar every article that is included in it.
It's a lot easier to identify a useful topic for an article than it is to identify a useful classification for a category. Articles also don't have to exist in a series, system, structure, etc., while categories only work to the extent that they are consistent, predictable, and integrated. So there are strong reasons for treating them differently. Ever since categories were implemented, I've disliked the ability of one editor to unilaterally create a category that, by its very existence, could force its tag on hundreds of articles and adversely affect the preexisting category system. One person should not be able to decide that museums will now be categorized by the color of their walls, or that thousands of biographical articles will bear the tag Category:People who use their hands in their occupations. Given that categories, unlike other content on Wikipedia, have to function as an integrated whole, and given that each category affects many articles, in an ideal world we'd have some kind of consensus-driven system for creating all categories, not just for getting rid of them. But I don't know of a way to implement that, either logistically or "politically." So we deal with them piecemeal. One thing you can always do though if you see a particular editor creating a lot of questionable categories is talk with him directly on his talk page, to hopefully preempt any further nonsense.
All that being said, I don't know that the situation is as dire as you suggest such that CfD as it is could not address any problems. Just browsing through the last 500 changes made in category space, I don't see any new categories that are beyond the pale, or even that I would necessarily advocate deleting. Most appear to fit well within preexisting category schemes. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, I forgot I can search that all. I know a lot were bot changes for language taggings. Funny how you mention museums. I can live with unusual categories, but downtright copies that clog up pages and the system? Like poor rewordings of official categories in WP:CRIME. That I can pick out at least. I just find it interesting that there are a billion guidelines about articles being filtered through but this is completely ignored. Thanks for the info, and yes of course I know Wikipedia can't be some magic utopia. It just scares me when people brag about how many CfD they cause... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Artillery

I may have made an unintentional blunder. I came across Ancient Artillery which is I believe, in effect, the same as slingshot or sling (weapon) and put the merge request on the talk page. I do not mean to step on any toes l santry (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to one page per discussion

I wish that WP:CFD would change the format to one discussion per page, as per MFD and AFD. The reason is to allow the participant to follow the discussion using their watchlist. The current page per day format makes it hard to follow a particular debate for new contributions, or even the close, because of subsequent edits to unrelated discussions on the same page. Personally, I like to look through my watchlist especially for XfD closing edits, and then review the debate, the close, and to see what there is for me to learn. This only works where the format is one page per discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. WP:FFD does it the same way as CFD, but there are often a lot more nominations per day there, and typically very little discussion, so it wouldn't make sense to implement it there. But I don't see a reason not to make that change here. Are there any reasons against? postdlf (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that most renames on Cfd are uncontroversial means that they have limited discussion, with (at best) a handful of discussants all agreeing "per nom". Add to this mix the question of daily traffic; Cfd typically gets 15-20 nominations per day (sometimes more, sometimes less) - this moderate level of activity does not make the daily logs unduly unwieldy or burdensome to navigate. Factor into this the fact that there is the occasional controversial discussion with wide participation.
Taking all these together, it would in my view be a waste of time to devote an entire page to the uncontroversial discussions - they neither merit it, nor do they need it. Controversial discussions? Perhaps. It could possibly be done on a case-by-case basis as and when thought to be needed. For those who are interested in reviewing the day's debates in toto (as most 'regular' participants do) this change would be a bit of a nuisance to their ease of navigation. I'm not sure I see the problem with reviewing the day's Cfd log to check on the closure of nominations of interest, and, in the absence of compelling traffic issues, I'm not sure I see any real advantage to this change.
Xdamrtalk 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Zdamr’s concern about a little extra nuisance for the regulars instead of making it easier for the non-regular is to get the priorities backwards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that Cfd 'regulars' need to be penalised as a necessary consequence of transparency and openness. As will all wp processes, it is the 'regulars' who tend to keep the whole show on the road. But that aside, in this case I think that the penalties would apply to all users, whether regular or not. As I have noted, I'm not against the change per se, but you really haven't described the need for this change, whether wrt volume of traffic or usability and convenience. I'm perfectly prepared to be convinced, it's just that there hasn't yet been a convincing argument. Almost all the more minor Xfd processes use this format - what is the compelling need for change with Cfd?
Xdamrtalk 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The benefit (if not need) is having a meaning name of the discussion in your watchlist, having comments specific to that discussion appearing on your watchlist, and most importantly, seeing the close of the discussion appearing clearly on your watchlist. Its about usability and convenience for the editors who only participate in a small proportion of the discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have considered this question several times already, and now again. The problem is that the page per discussion method would introduce another step in the nomination procedure. Weighing this against the advantage of the clarity a page per discussion method brings, it becomes relevant only if there are many nominations and much discussion. Cfd fails the first (and Ffd the second, as stated above, which is why they work like Cfd). So I'd be against. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
wp:cfd lacks nominations with much discussion? This is the problem we want to solve, I thought. We want more editors to be involved in categorisation discussion. The status quo is biased against the newcomer taking a meaning role. Of course the current process is suitable for the current workings. These are the characteristics of a process in a rut. Getting out of the rut is bumpy, hard work, and liable to fail on each attempt. The many routine, non need for discussion, renames should be moved elsewhere, especially if they are the reason to not reform. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If this was in comment to me, then I invite you to reread my post. I clearly said that Cfd failed the first: the number of nominations. But since you mentioned it, many of them are quite straight-forward also. Debresser (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively

If WP:CFDALL could retain closed discussions, as per WP:DRV, this would make review or recent discussions much easier. WP:CFDALL makes participating in new and continuing discussions easy, but they way they suddenly disappear is disconcerting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CFDALL is quite a simple page - all it does is transclude the past 7 days worth of debates onto one page. Once outside the 7 day window, the relevant daily log no longer appears, but rather is listed on WP:CFD/W for admin closure. Do you navigate Cfd by using CFDALL, or do you use the daily logs? If the latter, then these can easily be watchlisted. This means that any changes, be they contributions to debates, closures, or anything else, will show up on your watchlist. If you use CFDALL then that would explain matters - the debates don't disappear, it's just that once it is more than 7 days old the Cfd log for that day is no longer transculded there. The log itself can still be consulted at any time.
Xdamrtalk 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I often navigate to discussions via CFDALL, but it is the daily log pages that are watchlisted no matter how you get to the discussions. My problem is there is no easy way to peruse all of the overdue and recently closed discussions without going to each daily log, and the watchlist is nearly useless because the ost recent edit is probably not to the discussion I am interested in. Perhaps we could use a page with all the pages linked from WP:CFD/W transcluded? However, I still think that one discussion per page, which I keep watchlisted if I'm interested, and not if I'm not, is ideal. To not do this is to make things difficult and weird for the occasional visitor. Yes, all the minor XfDs suffer from this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Last three weeks. It's large to load, but I think it will serve my desire, which is to easily review recent closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Multi-purpose listings

The CfD tags we place on categories give notice of exactly what we propose—to delete the category, to rename it to a particular thing, or to merge it somewhere. Often a CfD discussion, however, will deviate from that original request and a renaming proposal will turn into one for deletion (I'm sure I've done it myself on many occasions). Yet the CfD tag on the category will continue to state that only renaming is proposed.

On the one hand, we're not big on tying the hands of discussion participants to say they can only vote yay or nay on a single, narrow issue. On the other, it's possible that many people interested in the category would ignore a rename proposal as uninteresting or uncontroversial, and then miss the deletion discussion. Or maybe that doesn't happen, I don't know. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be a legitimate concern in some rare instances. Perhaps the rename and merge templates should be re-worded to state that deletion is also a possibility? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the ideal solution to this would be simple flag for CfDs that seem to be changing focus, and a bot the that goes see these flags and goes to the category page template and updates it, thus also notifing people watching that category that other results are now being seriously considered.
If this cannot be done-- I do suspect that this (ignoring a rename proposal and then missing a deletion discussion) does not seem to be a issue very often.Carlaude:Talk 06:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to tie the hands of a CFD discussion, by restricting the options to the original nomination. Doing so would greatly increase the procedural effort involved, by requiring either a fresh nomination for a different proposal or a flurry of new notifications when someone (who?) adjudged that focus was changing.
However, I share the concern about the undesirability of (for example) leaving in place a notice which suggests that renaming is the only option, when the CFD discussion may have an radically different outcome, such as deletion or merger. So I suggest that the least bureaucratic (and hence most reliable) method is to amend the CFD/CFR category tags to say explicitly and prominently that the discussion may produce outcomes other than those proposed. That way anyone interesting in the category's fate will know that the proposed renaming or merger is just an initial proposal, but that discussion may consider very different options ... and that they should monitor or participate in the CFD debate if they have views or interest in the future of the category.
The wording could be something along the lines of

This category is currently being reviewed at Categories for discussion. Your input is welcome here.
The initial proposal is to {delete the category}/{rename it to X}/{merge it to Y}, but other options may be considered in the course of the debate (including renaming, deletion, or merger). You should not assume that the outcome will reflect the initial proposal.

That wording is only a first draft, but I think that something along those lines would be a big improvement. It could be done without increasing the administrative burden on CFD participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
First draft or not, I think it does the job quite well. I'd be happy to see this added to the relevant templates. Any objections at all? --Xdamrtalk 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not add the other common options like splitting and listifying. If nothing else, it would suggest a full range of options that someone not familiar with the discussions might see as a better solution then the initial proposed option. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Some 2009 Cfd statistics

In thinking about the recent discussions of Cfd being somehow "broken", I quickly pulled together some statistics. Some editors might find them of interest. (I know this doesn't "prove" anything, but it is interesting data to consider.)

From January through October 2009, there were 4739 discussions at CfD. In the same period of time, there were 33 DRVs from CfD, representing around 0.7%, or one for every 143 discussions.

Of the 33 DRVs, the results were as follows:

  • "Endorse" – 16 (48.5%)
  • "Relist" – 6 (18.2%)
  • "Overturn" – 5 (15.2%)
  • "No consensus" – 3 (9.1%)
  • Speedy close / moot / otherwise inappropriate – 3 (9.1%)

Let's call the "overturn" ones and (to be generous) the "no consensus" DRVs "problematic". Of the relists, 3 resulted in a result that was consistent with the initial close that was appealed, and 3 resulted in a result that was inconsistent with the initial close. So we can be generous and add 3 more to the "problematic" category.

That leaves us with 5+3+3 = 11 CfD discussions in 2009 that have been confirmed by the community to have been "problematic" in some way. 11 of 4739 is 0.23%, or one for every 435 discussions. Since in this period of time CfD averaged 474 discussions per month, that's a rate of less than one per month (although 11 in 10 months suggests just over one per month). 5 were so blatantly wrong so as to be overturned at DRV. 5 of 4739 is 0.11%, or one for every 909 discussions.

If any process "works" 99.77% of the time and is not obviously wrong 99.89% of the time, it is a relatively good and reliable process. To me, a 0.23% "failure" rate and a 0.11% "obvious failure" rate suggests that the process is pretty good, considering we are all humans who will always make occasional mistakes. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current system mostly gives the right results, but there are still a couple issues with CfD these statistics do not speak to. (1) The CfD process is a slow process, too slow, considering how easy it is to create unhelpful categories. (2) Wikipedians perceive the process to be faulty. For these reasons, IMHO, people will avoid even bringing unhelpful categories to CfD that ought to go away. Wikipedians also avoid bringing unhelpful CfD results to DRV that ought be overturned. This would also skew the statistics as their interpratation, above.Carlaude:Talk 05:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. If I may try to help stimulate interest in discussing this...
My current opinion is that the worst thing about CfD is a lack of diverse participation from the editing community. As such, it is not fair to blame those who *do* participate. But we could do more to make it easier for newcomers. Or maybe the creation of categories should be reserved for a certain level of editor.
Problems that I think are real include: "From January through October 2009, there were 4739 discussions." That is too many discussions at an administrative forum. (I know AfD is far worse.) Could many of those discussion have been resolved at lower profile locations? Is the problem that ill-conceived categories are too easily created, and a formal discussion is required to do anything with them?
Is "only 33 DRVs from 4739 discussions" a good measure? What if we counted DRVs (excluding endorses) per participant? Or per unique closer per XfD forum? CfD overinflates its bottom line with routine renames. What would happen to AfD if every move, merge, and redirect were required to go through an XfD process?
I still think there is a problem with the learning curve required to get into categorisation. Can we fix that with better documentation, or should we admit that not everyone is ready to create categories?
Perhaps my standards are higher. I like how MfD works. What's the overturn rate of MfD discussions?
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the answers to your statistical hypotheticals as I didn't count stuff like that. For what I did count—as I said I don't think this "proves" anything, but I think it does help add a perspective. As for the degree of participation—you know, you can't force users to care. I have found (repeatedly) that many users don't really care about categories and they are not interested in discussing them. I don't see a flood of users wanting to get involved saying, "help! I want to create/delete/rename/discuss categories but I don't know how!" In fact, most uninvolved users I have tried to involve have told me point blank they don't care. It's unfortunate, but at the same time—users work on what interests them and I don't think we should force people to participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, my experience echoes that of Good Olfactory. I have often notified several active wikiprojects of proposed changes to categories which are widely used by editors working in that area, only to find next-to-no participation. Often those editors who do participate as a result of those notfications seem to have little to add to the discussions, and usually saying little more than "seems OK to me", or words to that effect. It's quite rare for a notice of a CFD debate to trigger more than one or two responses from project members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Good to see you back, Bhg! are you limbering up for the election? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Ditto agreed. A wise man once said something about leading horses to water and something about drinking as well, though I'm not sure... Either way, people cannot be forced to care. Cfd is not hidden, is not restricted, and s not a dictatorship (perhaps a mild oligarchy at worst...). Decisions are made by those who turn up, the same as anywhere else on wp. --Xdamrtalk 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

formal discussion required to rename or remove

Is the problem that ill-conceived categories are too easily created, and a formal discussion is required to do anything with them? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of this...
  1. A commitee of limited size is created to remove and rename ill-conceived categories.
  2. Categories can be removed or renamed as soon as any two people on the commitee post agreement on the course of action, a bit like the speedy system, but it has no set rules. They just have to agree it is fairly routine.
  3. If any Wikipedian objects to the action, other than the categories-creator, it goes into a formal discussion process that is exacly like the current CfD system. The category action is undone if needed.
  4. The categories-creator can also object to the action, but there is a delay of a few days, and if over half the category-action commitee action posts agreement with the action within those few days, it does not do to the formal discussion process that is exacly like the current CfD system. Carlaude:Talk 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I have sometimes thought that the fact that it was much easier to create ill-conceived categories than it is to delete them is one of the problems—really, it's impossible to stay on top of them all. Anything Cfd accomplishes will be cleaning up a small corner of the store. However, I've always been loath to suggest a solution to remedy this specific problem, because as it is now some users are prone to view the category system as being controlled by a "cabal" of sorts. Tightening up the system in this wouldn't make these users happy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
They are not happy already. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, true—so let's salt up that wound, eh? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Carlaude's idea is a tad too bureaucratic. I also think it is not a good idea to propose a council of governors - it is cabalist, elitist. What I think could work is a requirement that consensus for the creation of a category be established *before* it is created. To get things started, I suggest that sufficient demonstration be the agreement of any two editors. Not much, but a big step forward from where we are. We could have the boilerplate for category creation altered to point to the "rule". The two editors should sign the category talk page. Dubious categories created unilaterally would be speedy deleteable. I wouldn't enforce anything technically, as it is desirable that users who know what they are doing can just do it. For editors who prefer to work alone, perhaps there could be a request for category creation process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I can't see Carlaude's committee getting accepted. How many new categories are created daily? Would a "speedy creation" type mechanism work? They have to be listed on a page, & if no one objects within 24-48 hrs they go through. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What happens if someone does object? Can the would-be creator take it to a CfD then? Wikipedia has no Wikipedia:Creation review.
You could say they then need to get Cfd to approve the new category. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would be elitist, because everyone would still have the same right to take actions to a CfD as before, as long as there is at least a snowball's chance of it being overturned. The commitee would not be the maker of policy or of new category systems. Those choices, and many others, would still need WP:CON at a CfD. The commitee's task would only be to determine what proposed renames and deletes are "routine."Carlaude:Talk 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you just hugely underestimate the community resistance to any new "officers" on the project, especially a small group of them. If accepted, you would probably be forced to have RFA/Arb Comm types elections. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wary of solutions which appear to increase bureaucracy, and restrictions on creation appear to do just that. What I suggest instead is to look at the problem from the other side, and make it easier to delete newly-created categories. We already have some relevant criteria at WP:CSD, but I don't think it would be helpful to expand those. I think that instead it would be better establish a category version of the {{prod}} process used with articles. Like article-PROD, this would allow deletion without discussion unless challenged. Because of the obscurity of categories, I suggest that category-PROD:

  1. be restricted to newly-created categories (say within 7 days)
  2. should not be used for categories which have already been discussed at WP:CFD (to avoid bypassing an already-achieved consensus);
  3. should proceed only if the category creator has been notified.

This would avoid imposing extra, cumbersome, steps on editors who are creating valid and useful categories, but also make it easier to remove frivolous categories. By removing some of the "obvious deletions" from CFD, we'd also focus attention more on the categories which do need serious consideration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is another promising option. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have never liked the idea of PROD's. Too uncontrolled. The other extreme. Especially in category namespace, which is a lot less visited then article namespace. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that my proposal is much more controlled than article-PROD. Like article-PROD, it would trigger a category listing of proposed deletions, and it would be a fairly simple matter for a bot to generate a list which could be linked from (or transcluded into) WP:CFD.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename monthly categories

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_19#Categories_for_discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we want 13,411 articles added to a category by bot?

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Help_in_adding_category_to_Domesday_Book_settlements Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CFD being broken: Recreation of deleted material as it applies to CFD

Since there seems to be discussion as to where and how CFD is broken, one instance is the application to recreated categories of speedy criterion G4. "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." Now when this was proposed it wasn't thought applicable to categories, but over the years that line has been forgotten. This is an area which can cause contention on Wikipedia and it would behove editors to work out a way of limiting the application of this criterion in category space. Hiding T 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be unhappy with such a speedy criterion as well. Where have you found it? It is not on WP:CFD. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I see. It is on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't make much sense to allow repeated re-creations of a category that has been deleted by consensus multiple times at CFD. There's probably a stronger case for allowing deletion of re-created categories as opposed to articles, since articles on certain topics can be vastly improved with improved referencing, etc. Category:Banned books will always just be Category:Banned books—it's never gonna get better. If users had carte blanche to re-create any category deleted at CFD, deletion would be kind of pointless and the option to SALT a category shouldn't exist either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
But what if a category was deleted only once, and many articles have been created since, or a new structure has been made in which this category has a place? Debresser (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, things change, so there will always be instances where it would be inappropriate. But I dispute the basic premise that G4 doesn't apply beyond articles. It's in the general category, which means it applies beyond articles. If the intent was to limit it to article space (and I'm not sure that it was, without seeing some evidence), then it should have become an A# criterion at CSD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That may have been the original intent, but don't these examples show that applying it blindly to Cfd would be unjustified? Debresser (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone suggested that it be applied blindly anywhere? I think that would be a mistake in categories or articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comment above sets forth what can be good arguments for permitting recreation, and we'd be able to address those changed circumstances through discussion, whether on talk pages or at WP:DRV, notwithstanding the literal ability to speedy delete the recreation. In practice, you don't often see a lot of speedy deletions of categories years after CFDs. People are far more likely to take the recreation to CFD again rather than speedy deleting it, particularly if by the time they notice the recreated category, it is well populated and integrated into the category system. So I don't think we have good reason to be concerned about G4 being misapplied to categories. And removing its applicability would just completely undermine CFD, by permitting endless recreations of deleted categories with no recourse except for successive CFDs. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Good Ol’factory is right. G4 specifically states that it should be "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy", which in the case of categories excludes the cases I mentioned. But it would be wise to add that in so many words. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We should consider adding something like: "For categories this would exclude categories which have been added to a substantial amount of pages or have been made part of a category structure since the deletion discussion." Debresser (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a good idea. Any individual can unilaterally add a category to however many pages they want; that they accomplish 500 edits before anyone notices shouldn't matter as to whether the category should be speedied. The second criteria is too subjective to be an inflexible rule, and anyway something can be made part of a structure without being a good or functioning part. I really don't think we need to change this. No one has identified an actual problem with how it currently functions. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I do speedy deletes based on G4 from time to time. I mean, I just recently speedily deleted Category:High School dropouts. It had two members. Should I really have nominated it again for a full discussion, in light of the strength of this and this? Well, maybe. But then I'm sure I also would have been criticised with some boos on the grounds that "we've deleted this before!" Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have booed you. postdlf (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not consider creating an area where re-creations can be discussed as part of categories for discussion which would be an alternative way of doing it that would resolve issues such as having to relist for deletion certain categories. It's rather easy to cherry pick examples, but what is teh staunch opposition to codifying current practises? Hiding T 12:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually suggested removing it's applicability to categories, merely codifying what everyone here agrees happens anyway. As to the point that it is in the general category of speedy deletion criteria, if you examine the history you'll see that it appears there not through design but by chance and circumstance. I've been through the history and posted about it somewhere around these parts before. I hope you'll accept my word for it. Hiding T 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you have in mind when you propose to codify current practice? It appears to me that the current practice is already codified in CSD G4: the criterion explicitly "excludes ... pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". So, if a category was deleted for not having enough members to justify a split from its parent, a better-populated recreation of it would not fall under the criterion. However, if a category was deleted because the very premise of the category was rejected (e.g. Cat:Cat lovers), then no amount of 'tweaking' will make a difference. In such cases, do you not agree that the onus should be on the person who wants to recreate the category to prove that, for one reason or another, the previous consensus no longer should apply? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I don;t think it's that clear cut when you apply it to categories because consensus can change, and I think it is worth highlighting the fact that for categories there is no way to avoid identicality. But yes, I agree very much with your idea that there should be another discussion, which is why if you go back and re-read I was putting across the idea that we have a categories for recreation area. I'm not sure why that's so objectionable, perhaps you could clarify? Hiding T 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It has been known for questions over re-creation to be raised here at WT:CFD, but from time to time I recall previously deleted categories also being raised as Cfd nominations for discussion. As has been noted above, a poor scheme of categorisation will probably remain a poor scheme of categorisation. I can't see a huge amount of legitimate traffic under this heading, but broadly speaking I see no harm in offering an avenue for legitimate, in-process re-creation. G4 clearly must remain as it offers continual enforcement of Cfd results - without it Cfd would really be 'broken', with decisions made having limited binding effect. Otherwise it would not be too much of a jump to allow re-creation to also count as part of Cfd's 'discussion'.
If we did go down this path then we would need some sort of criteria to restrict frivolous and vexatious re-creation nominations. Various CSD criteria (nonsense, vandalism) could be a bar to re-creation nominations, perhaps also those decided in accordance with policy/guidelines such as WP:OCAT? (Though that might be controversial in some quarters.) Perhaps a limit to the yearly number of re-creation nominations for each particular category? Certainly, per User:Black Falcon above, the onus should certainly be on the nominator to demonstrate circumstances have now altered and the grounds of the original decision are no longer valid. We should avoid creating too much bureaucracy with this, but, while generally liking the idea, I think having a potential immediate Cfd Round 2 after the conclusion of each debate would be problematic.
Xdamrtalk 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem occurs when there are very few people participating in a discussion that results in a delete. Granted, that "problem" is not with G4 but rather getting more people to CFD, but the perception is that G4 is to blame. I can see how people would become frustrated that (for example) four people wanted to originally delete, and that "consensus" is used to G4 a category, perhaps multiple times. Admins should probably take that into consideration when deciding to speedy delete. If a category has only gone through one CFD with limited participation, it won't hurt to send it through again. --Kbdank71 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clyde bot issue

Looks like if you change a category for a template and the category is actually transcluded with the documentation, clydebot does not make the change. Give how few of these there are, I don't see this as a big problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

G6

It seems to me there is now a problem regarding Criterion G6. I'm not sure of the best way forwards, appreciate comments on how to tackle this. I assume that if it does get re-instated and someone objects to a speedy nomination under the criterion it still needs to go to a full debate? How will that play out in practise? Hiding T 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are trying to remove it because a few editors who have no experience working on Cfd have stated that they disagree. But the editors who work here have used this time and again in practise, until it was decided to turn it into an official rule. So I personally fail to see the logic and consensus in removing this criterion. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. There's no rule which says some people are better than others or that their opinion counts for more. Hiding T 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding that it is a simple matter of a few against many, and of those who do not know the subject matter at hand against those who do. Especially since the whole idea of speedy criteria is to reflect factual consensus on Cfd. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I misunderstand nothing. You seem to have things on their head though, given that any policy has to reflect the consensus of the entire community, not merely some small part of it. Policies aren't made to save you from tiresome debates, I'm afraid. Hiding T 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all, this is not a policy. This is just a working rule to fascilitate the workings of WP:CFD and as such it reflects practise on WP:CFD. You want to discuss it, go ahead, but there is no reason to let the opinion of a few people sway consensus. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's assume that the criterion is opposed on theoretical grounds by some editors, but then when push comes to shove and an actual nomination takes place, everyone who participates says "do it speedily". If this occurs often enough, it seems to be a case of theoretical purity vs. what actually happens in practice. I think the speedy criteria are there to reflect what actually happens in practice, not reflect some abstract theoretical purity. I'm willing to not have #6 for a period of time, but if practice treats #6-like nominations in the way that suggests #6 should exist, I don't see why it shouldn't. (This is just my opinion, of course.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What concerns me is that given the way CFD works, unless the circle has been squared regarding getting more input at CFD by involving outside editors through some sort of automated messaging, those debates may not be reflective of the wider community. I'd like to propose CFD investigate the possibility of automatically notifying a WikiProject when a category in their purview is nominated for deletion/renaming. Because I think in some instances, an I am sure you'd agree with me, there will be contentious proposals under this criterion, and it behoves us all to get this as right as we can. And I don't think it is right to speak of this as a theory/practice affair, since the practice across Wikipedia is not to dab unless you have to. CFD is the opposite in that regard. Hiding T 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Anyone can participate at CFD. This is not a "CFDers" vs. "the wider community" issue. Why must we always try to draw artificial lines between users? If someone doesn't like the way disambiguation of categories is done, then they can participate in CFD. "CFDers" are part of the wider community. A user can't hold up implementation of a CFD consensus just by saying, "I know my friends User:JoeBlow and User:JaneRoe would disagree with this if they bothered to participate, but they don't care enough to participate so I'll just say on their behalf that this doesn't represent the consensus of the wider community". It's a nonsense circular argument. If CFD doesn't reflect wider community consensus—someone please prove it by having the so-called wider community participate at CFD. If they don't want to, then there's no contradiction!
        The notification of WikiProjects issue is a potentially problematic one, for many reasons. Which projects get notified? How do you determine which ones get notified and which ones don't? Do nominators have to know what projects exist? etc. It could perhaps somehow be done automatically if the category talk page is tagged, but why should it be limited to projects that diligently tag? See User:Kbdank71/Wikiproject_notification. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I haven;t been the one to draw lines here, so I fail to understand the defensive attitude you are taking. I am merely trying to engage and debate and work within our policy regarding consensus. Can you think of any other policy which wouldn't get debated by and announced to the wider community before being implemented? Would such additions be in line with policy at WP:PROPOSAL? Regarding notifying wikiprojects, why shouldn't WikiProjects that actively tag be notified? Doesn;t the fact that they actively tag indicate they wish to be notified? This feels like an artificial hurdle. I think I'll raise this at a more central area so better opinions can be garnered rather than "why should we". Hiding T 12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Perhaps if you wouldn't have reverted against consensus people would have been less defensive. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
            • You're putting the boot on the wrong foot. I'm not at fault here and I won't revert an addition if it gets re-added after a central discussion at the pump or after a discussion here that's been the focus of an RFC and has been open at least a week. I do object to re-adding it after a cfd discussion, which is wrong on a number of counts. You've got a self-selected audience and no attempt has been made to advertise the discussion. This isn't about me, this is about making sure we get this right. The previous formulation was too easy to game, as has been seen. If peopel can agree on a way to safe-guard, then I doubt objections wi;ll be as high. Hiding T 15:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Your mistaken ideas are answered in my post a few lines above ("First of all..."). Debresser (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I also fail to see how Hiding can say he hasn't been drawing lines in light of the following comment: "unless the circle has been squared regarding getting more input at CFD by involving outside editors through some sort of automated messaging, those debates may not be reflective of the wider community". But whatever—I'm a little tired of discussing things from that frame of reference. If users want to encourage participation at CFD I applaud it. But as mentioned above by several users, we can't force the horses to drink. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If you re-read the debate, you'll see I was responding to the lines drawn by yourself and Debresser. I'm not the one who made a policy on the basis of a cfd discussion. Do we really create policy on the basis of a deletion debate, or should policy be kicked out to the wider community? That's the issue here, not attracting more editors to cfd discussions, but holding policy debates somewhere other than deletion discussions per policy. Hiding T 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
See my comments about theoretical vs. practical policy. Policy should reflect how things work in practice, not some theoretical abstract that sounds good. That's all the speedy criteria are—just a reflection of how things are treated in fact. I don't care what the policy is, so long as it reflects actual practice. It's possible to create a theoretical policy that then moulds the way things are done in practice, but that may be unlikely in this case. If this view is adopted, there is no distinction between CFD participants and the "wider community" that makes policy. The participants mould the policy and are therefore part of the "wider community" that is making policy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
See my comments about policy having to represent consensus. Until we square that circle, I don;t think we're going to get anywhere. Maybe a direct questions would be appropriate: Why can't we just have an RFC and get it over with? Hiding T 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
My point is that consensus can be found in what is practiced, because the practice derives from a consensus. This is similar to the kind of deep issues in society about "what is the law"? Is it what is written down in books or is it what is actually permitted or punished in practice? I think it's what is done in practice, so perhaps we just interpret words differently in context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I know what your point is. To take it apart, your point is, look, this is what we do, so obviously it is policy. My point is, great, but people don't agree, so really the whole point is up for debate. Your next point seems to be, but hey, we had that debate at some cfd. My next point seems to be, well, that doesn't seem right. That cfd was about a particular category, not about re-instating a policy, are all Wikipedians supposed to check CFD debates to make sure policies aren't being debated in them or is there a better way of doing this. That's the point at which we are now stuck, since we seem to be circling back to you restating the first point. I've tried a direct question, I'm not sure what else I can do except call the RFC, since we've devised a circular argument. If your argument is that hey, we'll carry on using G6 even if the whole of the community thinks it's a bad idea because it works for us, then that flies in the face of local consensus, doesn't it? And if you concede that if the whole community thought it a bad idea you wouldn't do it, then I don't understand what the problem is. Maybe we should try dispute resolution. Mediation? Hiding T 11:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't care enough about this issue to use DR or mediation. I've just stated my opinion; I have no intention on claiming it is the only approach. I don't have a strong opinion on what "should" be the approach, I just kind of go with the flow and implement what users decide. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that if those few editors who disagreed whould have read the arguments here, they would have been more reasonable than you are. Do you really think that your oposition alone is reason for mediation?! Do you find it so hard to accept that consensus is just not always the way you want it to be? Do us a favor. The issue is settled as keep G6, and that's it. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you skip the personal attacks, and if you're not going to engage with the issues, skip the debate please? I'm quote a reasonable chap and I tend to respect consensus. If you are finding me pig-headed be assured it is almost atypical and that there may be things going on here you are not understanding, such as the way and the why, we do things. Given yourr outright hostility to any other opinion than your own, I'll just go ahead and start an RFC. That way we all win. Cheers. Hiding T 14:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory , I think that the discussion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Mixed_martial_artists_from_Georgia has already decisively answered your question. Not to forget the predecessing discussion above. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As of late there have been similar suggestions, which have been positively assessed. The question is how to take care of this practically. And I agree with you that Cfd is quicker to disambiguate than any other area of Wikipedia, and I have seen this mentioned in discussions from time to time as a deliberate thing. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:POLICY#New classification

The link is a section at WT:POLICY with a lot of subsections ... could someone who has some free time look at the last few subsections, and tell me whether you would rather have this discussion at WP:VPP or here? It's primarily a policy question, but per WP:POLICY, whether a page is policy or not is a matter of which cat it's in, so it's also a cat question. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've started the discussion at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. If we can get some kind of consensus, I'll be back to ask what the next step is. I've left a message on the talk pages of all the relevant pages pointing to the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we seem to be agreed at WP:VPP that the new cat and the placement of policy pages is non-controversial and that we should go ahead and do it. If someone objects, tell me now ... otherwise, we'll create the cat and move the policy pages around per the VPP discussion before Tuesday, Dec 1. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Setup for new monthly categories

Can someone find out why there was no setup done for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 1? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it was created on November 1. What do you mean? Debresser (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories for quizzing

I hope this is the right page for suggesting new categories. I think the confusion displayed in discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Vered largely stems from the mixing of a)fame and b)quizzing ability. While the former always will be somewhat vague, the latter can usually (not always) be determined. That's the case because with the creation of the body IQA in 2003 the European top players have had the chance to continually play each other (no money prizes, off-TV for trophies and glory), their tournaments are the current bellwether. American competition has been spotty (with an upwards trend) but good enough to enable international comparison. Vered was 8th at the WQC 2009, Ken Jennings 9th at the EQC Open 2007, so it's safe to say they're both world class but not the men to beat, Brad Rutter who has beaten both of them in the US has yet to play IQA, he must be regarded as 5 or better. Englishman Kevin Ashman is the 2009 European Quizzing Championships and World Quizzing Championships champion and must be called world #1. Now check out his category: Category:Contestants on British game shows!! LOL. I suggest to establish categories Category:IQA medalist (single) and Category:IQA gold medalist (team), I'd prefer to reduce the Cat to only the winners of the team competitions as wins here are less conclusive about an individual player's ability. I also suggest a Category:IQA competition to include the British Quiz Championship, the WQC and the EQC and I finally suggest a Category:British Quiz Championship winner.German.Knowitall (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prisoners

This cat Category:Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland I assumed that the definition of this cat would be for people that were actually being detained at the present time, on the cat page there is no qualification as to what it actually is meaning, I thought cats were supposed to be quite narrow and therefore assumed that it couldn't mean anyone who had ever been a prisoner of Switzerland, please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories are generally not time-sensitive. The prisoner categories are for prisoners past and present, not just for current prisoners. Note that one of the subcategories is Category:People executed by Switzerland. These people are obviously not current prisoners. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I would like to see them made to be time sensetive, for example..people who have been imprisoned in Swiss... and .. people who are currently prisoners in swiss. People executed by swiss is not really time sensetive is it? its more like the end of the line. I don't think that someone who has been released from jail and is a living person belongs in the cat:detainees of swiss. Very vague, I thought cats were supposed to be clearly defined? Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories for people are generally not time-sensitive. We usually delete categories for people of a particular "current" or "former" status, so that would probably not be the way to go. People who were executed by Switzerland are not currently prisoners of Switzerland. That's one reason why it wouldn't make sense to make Category:Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland time sensitive, because those who were executed by Switzerland are within that category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Time-sensitive categories would be almost impossible to maintain/update to reflect release from prison, re-imprisonment, re-release, and so on. Unlike article text, where it is possible to indicate how current a piece of information is (e.g., "As of 2008, {NAME} was imprisoned in Switzerland."), categories can only indicate a characteristic without any additional context. The characterisation of "prisoner and detainee of Switzerland" still applies to a person who has been released; only the tense has changed from "is a prisoner..." to "was a prisoner...". Likewise, a person who is an architect could retire, but that would not change the fact that he or she was an architect at some point in time. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, thanks both of you for commenting, I don't really agree with the position, as it seems to be possible to update the matches played and the goals scored of footballers weekly, I edit a lot of BLP articles and I don't think it correct to leave a living person in a detainees of anything group if they are not a detainee of anything...but at least I now know the position and the general reasons behind it, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

XfD logs

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories guideline status?

There have been ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:User categories re. removing guideline status from the page. Comments welcome. --Xdamrtalk 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This "guideline" never went through the guideline proposal status. This should be viewed not as a demotion, but as a promotion proposal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I know I've said this plenty of times elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here so that uninvolved editors can get a balanced perspective: the guideline was split from an existing guideline (i.e., a portion of the text of one guideline was used verbatim to form this guideline) because of length and relevance issues and its tagging as a guideline was advertised at the Village Pump, so it's no surprise that it never went through the proposal process. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot to handle merge to multiple targets?

Looking to close a debate which may end up with a merge to multiple targets outcome. Memory like a sieve, but I do vaguely recall from the distant past that one of the bots could potentially handle these sort of outcomes. Am I right, or just confused?

Xdamrtalk 15:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are (right, that is), but I also can't remember the specific bot. I want to say Cydebot, but I'm not 100% sure. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Project-space categories in userspace

Note in Category:General style guidelines that there are a bunch of userpages that have imported General style guidelines pages, including their cats. Is there a way to create categories that have no effect if they are imported into userspace, or is there a bot available that can remove them from userspace? - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only way to deal with them is to comment them out (using the hidden comments feature: <!-- TEXT -->) manually per the user page guideline (see WP:UP#NOT #14: "Categories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines."). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Look at {{cat handler}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name

This RFC is called to discuss the consensus behind a speedy renaming criteria, and possible ways of improving it and the process. Hiding T 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Outline

Hi. I'm just looking to gauge the community stance on the sixth speedy renaming criterion after related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 69#Disambiguating categories, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 18#Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia and Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria#G6:

  • Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (for example, Category:Georgia → Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state))

Are there ways of tweaking the guidance, perhaps so that we guide that the disambiguation style matches the parent article, for example?

Or is it even necessary, given that per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.

Given that it is unlikely that people actually search for categories using the go button, and that most people will navigate to a category through articles or other categories, which will make context clear, is there a need to pre-emptively disambiguate categories on a wide scale, or should any such renamings be subject to a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than speedily performed?

Experienced editors at CfD argue that the criterion saves time since most of the changes are uncontroversial. However, it could be that a lot of these changes are being missed by a number of editors. It has been suggested that a bot be tasked to notify relevant WikiProjects and/or category creators when categories are nominated for speedy renaming, or even nominated for a full debate. Would that also be a worthwhile endeavour? Thank you for your time. Hiding T 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The suitability of the speedy criterion itself

Discuss

I don't think this criterion is suitable; disambiguation isn't always needed just because a parent category is disambiguated (example: Category:Presidents of Georgia (country) - the "(country)" is entirely superfluous, even though it's needed in the parent Category:Georgia (country)). These things need to be discussed; there's no automatically right answer. (Unless the criterion can be reworded to cover only genuinely uncontroversial cases.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Probably the best argument I've seen in favor of consistent disambiguation, even for subcategories where it might be unnecessary, is that inconsistent application would force readers and editors to guess in each instance whether a category uses the disambiguator or not. Consistency would also avoid a lot of wasted time in ultimately pointless arguments as to whether disambiguation was in fact necessary in a given instance, which is not always obvious or uncontroversial. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Categories are generally accessed via a member of the category, or through other categories in the same tree. These routes to the page, and often the definition of the category itself, mean that it will often be evident which of two homographs/homonyms is intended. Whether disambiguation is needed is a matter of discretion: neither common sense nor overwhelming consensus (consider the number of voices raised in favour of the removal of the country name when Georgian international footballers were recently discussed) seems to indicate that such a change should be automatically assumed to be the right thing to do in all cases, which is the presumption implicit in speedy status. Kevin McE (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Categories can also be accessed by typing the name of the category into the browser search bar; I doubt I'm alone in this. And obviously when adding categories one is doing so from within the text of an article, not from the category page. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Consistency is a double-edged sword, though. If you're coming from other categories named "Presidents of [Country]", then "Presidents of Georgia (country)" is clearly inconsistent (and so quite unexpected). The best we can do for consistency and users' convenience is to consistently follow the rule that titles only contain such disambiguation as is necessary.--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this criteria is suitable. All speedy criteria evolved when it became clear from the results of many nominations on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion which criteria were almost always accepted. Since the "disambiguation" criteria is indeed almost always accepted on WP:CFD, a fact to which I can testify myself, this is a suitable speedy criterion. See also my comment in the second half of this Rfc. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Suitable, since it reflects what consensus has been over many fully-discussed CFDs. As soon as there is a change in this consensus at CFD, we could say the criterion is not suitable, but I don't think we are there yet. The speedy criterion should reflect what CFD consensus is in fact. If we're talking about what it should be in theory, I generally agree with what User:postdlf has said. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The criteria is suitable for reviewing a category to see if it should get moved. It's less so for moves without notice or room for discussion. And it is unacceptable for retention of cases where the dab defies common sense. The cases with Georgia above are a good example. Within the schema where some of the categories reside, the "clean" category title is crystal clear, making the dab suffix pointless. - J Greb (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Suitable for speedy (although all the points against are good ones). The matter has arisen many times with bands – it has been argued for instance that whilst Category:Cream will not do and should be Category:Cream (band) per the article Cream (band), that Category:Cream albums is OK (consensus has usually retained or added the disamb). It seems to me more straightforward to give all subcategories of Category:X (dis) the same disambiguator (particularly if the article is also X (dis)) rather than ponder the relative ambiguity of every possible subcat (eg I have no idea without doing some work whether there are other Georgias which might have presidents of some sort). I would assume that if someone objects to a particular speedy (before or after) that it would go speedily to a full cfd anyway, so why not wave the majority through? Occuli (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Several editors claiming that consensus is with such changes being uncontroversial are ignoring at least one recent discussion. Does anyone really want to defend the disambiguation in Category:Georgia_(U.S._state)_in_the_American_Civil_War as anything other than the elevation of conformity over common sense? Quite apart from the absence of the disambiguator in the parent article, and the absence from this (or any other) encyclopaedia of articles on other Caucasian nations' attitude to that war, the Eurasian Georgia was subsumed into the Russian Empire during the 1860s, and in no position to take a partisan viewpoint. Do we really want legalism to so totally swamp logic? Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There's an even worse case: Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) :) --NE2 10:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought there is no "common sense". Note that the argument and the criterion has never been the presence or absence of a disambiguator in the main article. It has always been whether or not the main parent category is disambiguated or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation style should match the parent article

Discuss
  • I have seen a general consensus (and agree with it) that we should be more concerned with clarity and ambiguity when it comes to category names than article names. So where a parent article uses a disambiguator, I think it should invariably be applied to related categories. But where the parent article does not use a disambiguator, it still might be advisable to apply one to its related categories. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On of the rationals behind the "disambiguation" speedy criterion is that catalogising, which is what categories do, must be done carefully. Therfore it has been consensus in category discussions that they should disambiguate even in cases where the articles are not disambiguated. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily—probably best determined in a case-by-case method. But the disambiguation style of subcategories of a "main" category should always match the disambiguation style of the main category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So a full discussion on whether to dab a category to match an article, a full discussion to add a dab to a sub-category where the parent cat does not use one, but it's okay to speedy adding a dab phrase to a subcat of a main cat which has the dab phrase? Hiding T 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If a dab suffix is needed for a category or category set, then it should match the most relevant article. I really can't see a case where the a cat should be dabbed differently from the primary article. And if there is such a situation, it should definitely not be a case of a "speedy" move.
    And on the related note that seems to be broached above - it seems extremely counter intuitive for a category to use a dab suffix when the parent article doesn't need one. - J Greb (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's possible for an article to be badly-named. In such cases, it would be overly slavish to require the category name to adhere to the article name. I don't know of any reason that moving the article first should be required in every case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Automated notification

Discuss
  • I would be in favor of automated notification to related WikiProjects. All editors who have partaken in discussion around this subject (and there have been a few lately) agree with this. the problem is that it does not seem technically possible. Posting a notification on the talkpage of all involved articles was also mentioned, but was dispensed as a bad idea, because it would likely be viewed a "just another notification template". It just now came up to me that if the notification were to be automatically removed after the end of the nomination, that feeling might be partially avoided. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

C2-1 should specify "misspelling" as a reason. along with "typographic fixes"

As the instructions read now, mistakes that occur between an editor's brain and fingers are eligible for speedy renaming, but not mistakes that are made as a result of deficient education. It is not always possible for the person discovering such an error to discern the cause. If I have missed a discussion that concluded that it is important to distinguish between them and handle misspellings another way, I apologize. Chris the speller (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such distinction. I have always regarded No.1 as including all sorts of incorrect spellings - however arrived at. We don't go too much into subjective intent here. If the spelling is objectively wrong, whatever the editor's intent, then it can be speedied under No.1. --Xdamrtalk 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I added "and spelling" to the definition, so an editor using the "find" function of their browser will be able to quickly locate it. Chris the speller (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What category is history?

Even if we aren't going to have a separate category for history, etc, can't we at least make it easy for people taking history articles to AfD know which is the appropriate category? Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Decision not acted on?

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 7#Polish boroughs, there was a decision to rename three categories, yet only one of them was actually done. Could someone who handles this sort of thing have a look at it? (Or should I just redirect them manually and wait for RussBot?)--Kotniski (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the same applies to the category in the thread above that one, Category:Neighbourhoods of Gdańsk.--Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The closing admin may have had something else come up and accidentally left the move undone. Alternatively, the move might impact another discussion and so was put on hold, although usually the admin will leave a note to that effect when closing. Just try sending him/her a message.- choster (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good idea - I've mentioned it to the admin.--Kotniski (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename - "Rugby union footballer/s" to "Rugby union player/s"

The rename of :Category:Rugby union footballers --> :Category:Rugby union players was approved and completed recently (nominated 11 Dec). All of the 87 subcategories that contain the "footballer" term should also be changed to "player". Surely there should be a better way than tagging all of them by hand? This is an umbrella-consensus from the wikiproject WP:RU and affects every use of the term. Any suggestions as to easily do it all? Is there a bot available for this? - Sahmejil (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin will need to do this with AWB, I would think. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
All of the 104 categories which I found nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_27#Rugby_union_players. When I nominated them, I said I would tag them, but I haven't found the energy, and since it seems to be a thoroughly uncontroversial move, I hope that tagging will not be necessary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_11&oldid=1144515783"