Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Category:Unpowered flight

Can someone fix Category:Unpowered flight ? The nominator substituted the wrong template -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done, see here. Basically it was a case of replacing the bad code with {{subst:cfm|Unpowered aviation|Category:Unpowered aviation}} --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry, that wasn't right. This category is not the one proposed to be merged out of existence, but rather the destination of the merge. I was attempting to follow this instruction on the project page. What did I do wrong? This is the category that is the merge target. Should it say the talk page of the category that is the merge target? Not that anyone reads category talk pages much.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfdnotice2|CategoryName|date=yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. See the doc page at Template:Cfdnotice2/doc for more information on how to use this template as well as other similar templates that can be used to notify the category's creator or related WikiProjects specifically.
Thanks for your help, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem that I addressed was that you had pasted code intended for the talk page of a user or WikiProject, onto the category page. The instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO, step II, state
Add one of the following tags at the top of the category text of every category to be discussed. (The tags belong on the categories' main pages rather than their talk/discussion pages.)
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):
  • For a merger, {{subst:Cfm|OtherCategory|CfdSectionName}}
I had fixed up the category page in line with these instructions. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, but that template seems to always say, "This category is being considered for merging into some other category." What I was looking for is the template for the other side of the merge, something like "Another category is being considered for merging into this category." I'm used to the twin templates {{merge from}} and {{merge to}}, so it seems tagging both sides of category merges isn't supported. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like you've identified a hole in the current procedure, and a template that should be created per the article counterpart's mergeto/mergefrom pair. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of category for Methodist Ministers

I found a notice on my watchlist for several occurrences of "Robot - Speedily moving category American Methodist clergy to Category:American Methodist ministers" -- there's a major problem with this. In the Methodist church, all members of the church are declared "ministers" (as the church believes that the act of "ministry" is the responsibility of everyone). "Clergy" or "Pastor" is the correct name. It should be switched back.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really the right venue. I suggest that you take it up with Fayenatic london (talk · contribs), who both nominated this category (among others) for renaming and (after a three-day stay during which no opposition was posted) sent all of them for processing by a bot. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The top-level decision was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Category:Methodist_clergy; scroll up from that one to see the discussion on Baptists which was open for three months, partly for the exact reason that you gave above, and was nevertheless closed as "ministers". I notified the Methodism work group too. I reviewed many articles and they predominantly use the word "minister" rather than e.g. "clergyman" or "pastor". In practice I don't think there is a problem with understanding the phrase "Methodist ministers", and each category page can explain that it is for ordained ministers rather than all church members.
For info, my overall intention for these categories is explained at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_19#Category:Christian_ministers. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: I had just nominated the last few Methodist clergy categories at WP:CFDS before I saw this discussion. Feel free to insert an "Oppose" comment if you still think these should be stopped. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment--I do think they should be stopped and the previous ones should be reversed. However, I am having trouble finding the proper forum and process to initiate discussion these steps. I've been knocking around Wikipedia for quite some time, but participation in CFDs is new to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've inserted an Oppose vote at WP:CFDS on your behalf, so those changes are on hold. As I have an interest in this, what does anybody else advise – a fresh WP:CFD for the top Category:Methodist ministers? I don't think there are grounds to take it to WP:DRV as the basis of objection is not new. – Fayenatic London 17:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This is now listed for a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_16#Category:Methodist_clergy_by_denomination. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Impending deletion of large number of old unlistified categories

A note to let you know of this unusual confirmation CfD I would appreciate input to. It expires one week from now. Many thanks, Splash - tk 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Teleportation in fiction

I believe this is a valid category; the page with this name has a long list. Category nanotechnology in fiction is valid as well. My apologies; it does look bad I just presumed these categories would not be contested. I thought the debate was over but it was not. I will use this talk page from now on; unless someone knows of a better page to propose categories. I guess the pages for nano technology, zoos, and teleportation? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe is currently under discussion at WP:ANI concerning his inappropriate creation of categories. He has been asked many times not to proceed with his changes but he does not acknowledge these edits. Any further discussion should be held at WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
No, discussion should take place here. He was asked to discuss the categories at Cfd; that's what he is doing. NE Ent 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Star Trek / Charmed come to mind off the top of my head. NE Ent 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Birds of Country

There is a consensus at WikiProject Birds that the collection of Category:Birds of Country (eg Category:Birds of Afghanistan through Category:Birds of Zimbabwe) are examples of overcategorization. They are currently vastly underutilized and full utilization would lead to some birds being placed in more than a hundred categories. Additionally, there is inconsistency between sources due to the relative rarity or migratory overflight of some species, which makes some categorization uncertain. These issues are better handled by lists of birds by country. It seems like it is time for a broader discussion about the deletion of these categories, and the notification of the various interested parties. The nomination for a deletion discussion will be fairly intensive, given the number of categories involved (a complete list is at Category:Birds_by_country). However there may some value to keeping the categories of endemic birds of region, so those should probably not be listed at this time. If anyone has an automated process for nominating all of these Birds of Country categories into a centralized discussion, I would greatly appreciate the help. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree - It is more appropriate to categorize birds by geographical region rather than country. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree - You might see if any of the regulars at CfD know how to do this; I've seen 8 or 10 nominated at once, though that's still in the realm of manually doable... if you succeed, perhaps we shall have a precedent I can use to axe the "horse breeds by country" and "dog breeds by country" categories that have been annoying me for years. (grin) (for mostly similar reasons, though also due to shifting national boundaries making a breed's "homeland" in one area of a nation that is now in another nation) Animal breeds don't need to diffuse into as many categories, but still, when something has to be diffused into more than about three "by country" pages, it just gets silly. Good luck and ping me if you put this up at CfD, as I will support. Montanabw(talk) 19:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • agree start with birds, but I'd start a discussion at wiki project animals or biology to see what they think. The most important thing would be to identify major regional groupings that are used to classify birds - do they use continents/subcontinents? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    comment: There is WP:BIRDS, the proposer should post there. Possibly do some research on the other animal projects, but they all probably suffer from the "Critters of Foo country" problem. I can say that for horse breeds, the International Museum of the Horse classifies by Continent, so for us, there's that. But I'd like to see the outcome for birds first. Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Horses don't usually migrate like birds do... that's the problem... do you categorize them where they breed, where they winter, both? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Encyclopedias by language

Currently contains entries "Foo encyclopedias" and "Foo-language encyclopedias". Do we need to standardize? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not. I'd standardize on "Foo-language encyclopedias" myself, as the categorization is based on the language they are written in, not the culture/ethnicity/country/etc they come from. a CFD nom of all of the missing ones should do the trick - could even try speedy, but probably best to do a full CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi: Seems reasonable. Would you mind starting the CfD? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that there is further non-consistency in the rest of the tree beyond encyclopedias, so it would be better to identify all of them across the tree and do a single CFD... don't really have time to do it now, but if you can identify all of them in need of fixing I could take a shot in the next few weeks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

People of Jewish descent

This isn't a standard CfD question but I'm not sure where else to bring up this subject. In November and December 2013, there was a long, involved debate (which I initiated) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism about whether to tag child categories "X people of Jewish descent" with the parent Category:People of Southwest Asian descent. X in this case is any other nationality, so, Category:Mexican people of Jewish descent or Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent. There was no question about people from Asia or the Middle East, it was primarily whether individuals who are from North American, South American, African, Australian or Europe who are of "Jewish descent" (not Jewish but had at least one Jewish ancestor) should be categorized as being Asian.

At first, there was a clear consensus that they shouldn't be in the "of Asian descent" parent category but as the discussion went on longer, it became heated and became about Jewish identity, DNA analysis, converted Jews vs. ethnic Jews, etc. I'll mention again that all of these individuals were clearly in the descent category, that means, they don't identify as being Jewish. After a month of fervid debate involving SPAs who popped up and then disappeared, there was no definitive consensus. Now, every edit regarding this specific question is labeled as "being against consensus" even though no consensus exists.

So, my question to you all is whether this is a question I can bring to CfD. It's not about deleting, renaming or merging categories, it's simply about what parent categories can apply to a set of child categories (so they are categories for discussion). The sticking point seems to be how far back "descent" is supposed to go, is it considered 3 or 4 generations (proximate descent) back or 2000 years back. I mean, if we go to ultimate descent, every person should be identified as being of African descent since that is where human beings originated.

I understand that there are some editors who frequent CfD who just want to get rid of all descent categories altogether but, at this moment, they exist and I'm just trying to get an understanding of parameters. Since this issue didn't get decided at WP:Judaism and it's not a question for WP:AN, this is the only other place of discussion I can think of to bring this question. What are your thoughts? Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

sure, bring it to CFD, but given the contentiousness of the last debate you may want to frame it as a neutrally-worded RFC and invite broad participation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand combining CfD and an RfC or how that would be done. There are probably 50 or 60 of these "of Jewish descent" categories and the question is not whether to delete, merge or rename them, it's what parent categories should be assigned to them. I have never seen this type of question posed at CfD although I've only been visiting CfD for six months.
I can see it would involve some explanation of the child-parent category hierarchy framework which isn't complicated in itself but will require some examples. As seen on the WP Judaism lengthy discussion, there are plenty of editors who feel strongly on both sides of the question and, for many of them, consistent category organization is at the bottom of their list of concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Inter-wiki links to foreign-language Wikipedia are no longer on category pages, but stored at Wikidata. (See recent Q&A at WT:Wikidata.) Therefore they need to be updated separately after category renames and, in some, cases, merges. I have added a paragraph at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. May I request those who regularly close CfDs, or clear up the working page, to confirm that they have seen this, either by responding below or by "thanking"/otherwise pinging me? ("Thanks for nothing" will be accepted in good faith! ) – Fayenatic London 19:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason that a bot can not do this? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
As the Q&A says, it's probably possible, but it's not being done at the moment. I don't know what data the bot would use for renames; I suspect it might be incomplete in practice. In any case, mergers ought to be examined manually. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So, picking one that has consensus and should close today and has an entry on Wikidata. When we merge Category:Female government ministers to Category:Women government ministers, we remove the English Wikipedia entry for Category:Female government ministers. Do we create one for Category:Women government ministers since nothing exists there or do we do nothing? The nothing option is also on the table since I'm not sure in French if there is a difference between Female and Women. Then we have the other two language ones that I can't read at all. So are most admins here qualified to make any changes other then a simple remove and add? And that action could be wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the example. Clicking the "Edit links" button under "Languages" on that category page takes you to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8446083 . There, you currently see under "Wikipedia pages linked to this item" that the English Wikipedia entry is Category:Female government ministers. At the right time, any of us can click the "edit" button at the right of that entry and change it to Category:Women government ministers.
If you look at the latter, it currently has nothing under "Languages", so there is one and only one page for this topic at Wikidata, as it should be. Nevertheless there are some duplicates at Wikidata; if you come across any, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Merge explains how to merge them. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Re changing the link to Category:Women government ministers on wikidata. How do we know that this is correct? We are making assumptions about the other contents are we not? How do we know that our old name and the remaining wikidata contents were in sync and the new name is or is not not? I would think we remove the current entry and maybe add a new entry on its own. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, we should WP:AGF that the Wikidata links which we can't read are mostly right, although much can be checked using Google translate. I am currently using the Chrome browser, which I find makes an easy job of instant translation. I respectfully disagree about any need to split the page at Wikidata for category:Women government ministers; the change of meaning in English is subtle, and therefore apt to be lost in translation; either of these English names is a close match to the linked French one, fr:Catégorie:Femme ministre; these are government ministers who were women, not ministers with a portfolio for women's affairs.
Still, perhaps we can put a hold on this discussion pending a further answer at WT:Wikidata, because I spotted a bot doing some changes after category moves. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll look up the Quebec Women's Affairs ministry to see what they use; likewise the Canadian federal government's French usage. My guess at this point would be Minstre des affaires feminins or Ministre des affaires des femmes....but affaires is also "business" so....I'll check.Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Quebec turns out to not have such a ministry- provided t hat [page is up-to-date which it may not be. Federally the ministry is called "Condition feminine canadienne and the minister is styled "Ministre de la Condition féminine" but this page also uses "Minstres Responsables du Status de la Femme" (not "des Femmes" as I would have expected) and as you can see there that portfolio has had various names and at times was "rolled into" other ministries like Multiculturalism.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Skookum1, read it again; you missed the point. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Emaus has explained at WT:Wikidata that his bot catches some but not all changes. It did not pick up the Women government ministers, for example; I just fixed that manually, using the Wikidata URL saved above. So, for the time being we had better do these manually. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Environmental skepticism

This discussion (archived on March 12) hasn't had any edits at all for 10 days. Can someone please intervene in the discussion, preferably by closing it to rename/split (I don't really care which)? Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

the (very few) admins who close these out are aware of the backlog, which extends Into february. I suggest patience...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll wait, but I doubt the backlog is so bad that it will not be cleared until February 2015 (which is apparently what you mean). Was that a typo? Jinkinson talk to me 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I meant I think there are open CFD discussions from feb 2014.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving stubs and associated categories

I've searched the archive and can't find any details on how to move a stub that does nothing other than populate a category. There doesn't appear to be a {{Tfr-speedy}} equivalent to {{Cfr-speedy}} or will moving the category automatically trigger a move of the associated stub? Any help would be much appreciated. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 09:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Which stub? What do you want to move it to? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There used to be a separate place for stub naming, but it is now handled at CfD. The connection is not automatic, i.e. the stub template has to be moved separately from the category, but one discussion handles both. Do you want to rename a stub where the category name is already satisfactory? – Fayenatic London 13:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
To editors Redrose64 and Fayenatic london: Thanks for the quick replies - the move of both the stub and category is a non-contentious one to fall in line with Chinese naming convention policy and existing stubs/templates:
"HongKong" should be replaced with "Hong Kong" and all dashes should be removed per other categories in Category:Hong Kong building and structure stubs. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Not so fast. I think these are in line with the stub template naming convention. See {{HongKong-stub}} for another example. I believe that all stub templates do not use spaces and separate words with a '-'. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Now having said that, it is still possible to rename the categories the stubs are placed in by a nomination here. Not sure if the category renames would be eligible at speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT there is no action required here. As Vegaswikian said, the five stub templates are already named in line with stub template naming conventions (just look through Category:Stub message boxes to see); and they all populate Category:Hong Kong building and structure stubs, which is also named in line with stub category naming conventions (see Category:Stub categories). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my error due to ignorance of stub naming conventions. The associated category names are fine as they are so no action needed. Many thanks. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 05:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did Category:Interior Plateau get deleted?

Saw BDD's HotCat removal of it on Mount Lolo. That's a major landform in British Columbia, and is a proper noun; it is one of the major landforms in British Columbia, and is in the same hierarchies as such things as Canadian Shield and Coast Mountains and Rocky Mountain Trench and more; it's also a parent category for items located within it, like Clear Range, Chilcotin Plateau and lots more. Whose bright idea was this? I went to the redlink, it said nothing about a CfD discussion anywhere. Who deleted it and why? Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of it being deleted? I don't see that it ever existed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong; I thought I had created it as a parent for various other items; Category:Quesnel Highland, Category:Thompson Plateau, Category:Cariboo Plateau and more are all subdivisions of it; not creating it, then, was an oversight on my part......it's a primary-tier landform.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This begs a question, though, indicating it had existed....maybe it was a redlink on that article...but as noted I'm surprised I didn't create it, in teh course of creating/organizing the BC Landforms categories. I've queried BDD but have not yet received a reply.Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I (re-)created it and populated it, though there are still lots of mtns and lakes and such that should be in it; subcats for "Mountains of the Interior Plateau" (for ones not part of the Clear Range or Marble Range etc) and similar will be created, along with cats for the subplateau/highlands redlinked above; populating them is time consuming as most Mountains and ranges in the main cats there are unsorted.Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It never existed until you created it. It's not unusual for users to remove redlinked categories from articles because such categories don't exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Understood.....I must have not created it though had put it on a couple of titles other than Mount Lolo - during my "population activities" today I found it was already on Bonaparte Plateau and something else already; so I had created the redlinks in the course of creating the series of related articles, then forgot to create it; which is done now.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for a BOT to implement non-admin closures

DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has opened a request for authorisation of a bot to implement CFD closures: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DavidLeighEllisBot_2#DavidLeighEllisBot_2.

Editors may wish to comment on that proposal, by a non-admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The bot request has been withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose new subpage for Discussions awaiting closure

I propose to create a new subpage for the "Discussions awaiting closure" section of WP:CFD/W, in order to allow that section to be unprotected.

I propose calling the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, with shortcuts from WP:CFD/AC and WP:CFDAC.

WP:CFD/W has been fully protected since 2007, apart from a brief lifting of protection from Dec08 to March09. See the original 2007 discussion and the 2009 discussion. (Disclosure: in each case, I instigated the protection).

In general, I think that protection has worked well. It is no impediment to the admins who close discussions, and has prevented any further abuse of the bots, as happened in 2007.

However, the "Discussions awaiting closure" section does not instruct any bots, so it does not need to be protected. Unprotecting it will allow non-admins to update it, for example at the start of a new day. It will also mean that any non-admins who close discussions with a "keep" result can update the list. Non-admins shouldn't really be closing discussions with outcomes other than a clear "keep", so this is sufficient to facilitate them.

Any comments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

PS. I mentioned this idea in a discussion last year, but didn't follow up on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Done - very good idea : )
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Discussions awaiting closure.
I also checked for other transclusions but only found a subpage of BHG besides the two already mentioned. All dabbed and ready to go : ) - jc37 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jc37: Why Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Discussions awaiting closure rather than just Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure?
The word "discussions" seems tautological.
It also seems a bit odd that when two editors had agreed on a particular title, you jumped in and implemented a different one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Because the categories aren't awaiting closure. The discussions of the categories are awaiting closure.
That aside, you two were discussing splitting information, I didn't realise you were tied to a specific word phrase...
Anyway, you're welcome for helping <shrugs> - jc37 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No prob with proposing a different name, but usually better to put it on the table first.
The categories can't be closed; only the discussions can be closed. So I'll move it to the shorter title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, categories cannot be closed. The page name is Categories for discussion, not Category discussions. And as the discussions, not the categories are closed (as you note), hence the name.
But ok, per WP:BRD I have no problem reverting the split that I performed, in order to facilitate hearing from others. I know, let's get a full RfC on this. We can debate the grammar that we both apparently agree on, which you seem to simultaneously discount in favour of some other name.
Oh and Discussions awaiting closure is also the stable version of the name of that thread for years.
But hey, let's dive in and debate this. Sounds like a great usage of our time... - jc37 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah for goodness sake, Jc37. You agree that it's a "very good idea", but then revert the whole thing because you dislike the name being changed to what was originally proposed? It seems petulant to just demolish it, when we could have continued to discuss the name.
The title of the thread has not been changed. It's just the sub-page which has a more concise name. A link to the page reads Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure; it doesn't need to spell out the full context twice, any more than Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working needs to be called Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working page for categories whose fate has been agreed in a discussion or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual needs to be called Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Working page for categories requiring manual work after a discussion .
In terms of great uses of time, demolition of a "very good idea" doesn't rank high. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to read the various adjectives (like "petulant"). I helpfully implemented the split, then you undid part of it because you didn't like that I used the name that has been the name of that thread for years, and you call me petulant? I'm not sure, but I believe that that is called projection.
But no worries, the community can have their say and we'll all move beyond this.
Oh, incidentally, I now oppose the split. Something I noticed after I did the split earlier - it wasn't being updated, except by me (and then you) who knew about it. I think if it's split it will be even less likely to be updated by closers as we are making it more difficult (several clicks away). Not everyone uses a computer keyboard and mouse to edit, after all. - jc37 21:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought I saw an edit summary where you fixed a heading so that we could click to edit the page from within WP:CFDW? – Fayenatic London 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That was me that made that change, before Jc37 reverted the whole thing.
If Jc37 had stopped acting unilaterally and discussed things, he might have spotted that.
As to Jc37's claim that I reverted something, that's not true: I moved the page to the title originally proposed, which is supported by all participants in this discussion, other than Jc37. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original proposal. This name is fine as proposed and doesn't need changes to the wording. If you went to a garage and saw a sign saying "Awaiting repair" you wouldn't think "I wonder if that means cars?"  Philg88 ♦talk 04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Any thoughts on the naming issue? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The short name was fine by me. I see now that Jc37 used the slightly longer name in good faith to match the heading. Certainly confused me when the split was reverted! I don't mind. Given the choice I'd go with the shorter. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, FL. Let's see if Jc37 has anything more to add, but so far it looks like a consensus to go ahead, and use the shorter name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
An RfC has (at least) 30 days. I'm happy to wait to see what the community-at-large thinks. - jc37 21:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I had read the RfC suggestion as a joke. IMHO, about 10 days here would be enough. Well, no hurry. There are not so many non-admin closures that it gets hard for admins to update the tallies sufficiently promptly. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jc37: I don't know what you are up to, but I am going to call your bluff on this.
I will reinstate the subpage under the name agreed by 3 out of the 4 editors who discussed it here. If you revert it, I will seek admin intervention, because reverting what you yourself called a "very good idea" looks like bad faith.
If you want to open an RM or RFC, feel free to do so. But I don't see that you have any right to veto a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is determined by an independant, uninvolved closer. You are neither. And this isn't merely my opinion, nor is it merely the WP:CON policy, but arbcom has reaffirmed this in several RfArs recently (this case, and this case for example).
And this was a "request for comment" per Wikipedia policy, before I ever commented here. You asked something of the community, and even stated the words "propose", and specifically asked for comment. I realise you're used to CFD where a discussion is typically closable after 5-7 days. But once an rfc is opposed or is in any way contentious or controversial, we wait out the 30 days to give the community an opportunity to discuss.
In all of this, I have followed Wikipedia policy. I saw a discussion, which, at the time appeared unanimous and uncontroversial. So to be helpful, I was WP:BOLD and implemented the proposal.
But once it was clear (from your comments at least) that it was not uncontroversial, I reverted myself per WP:BRD. I am following the dispute resolution process.
Since then, you have reverted again, which is at the least considered disruptive to do during an ongoing RFC.
Now I wrote up a full thing for AN/I, but in the process of finding links, I discovered/realised a wrinkle in all of this. And I decided that even though you are violating our policy on consensus, among several others, I simply don't want to see the results of what I found cause you to be sanctioned in the way it has happened to several others over the last few years. I don't wish that upon anyone.
So if you want to chalk this up to a "win" or some nonsense, feel free. (I only mention this due to your choice of game-like phrasing, such as "call your bluff".)
As this rfc is still open, you may want to advertise it using the accepted ways, like using an rfc template, or posting a neutral note at a WP:VP or, since WP:CFD/W is a protected page, at WP:AN. It may help the appearance of transparency in the process.
As far as I am concerned, I've commented. your link doesn't resolve my concern about closers needing more clicks to update the info (because they still do). But to be clear I won't be reverting, and won't be editing the created page whatsoever in the meantime. I think someone should revert it to the previous stable version as this is a currently high traffic process page, but even so, I would encourage others to not do so unless they discuss it at AN/I first.
In the meantime, I will probably ask one or more who I respect their insight into this situation. It would be nice to know the proper procedure should something like this happen in the future.
Oh and consider this my last words on this. Per WP:DR, I am disengaging from you. Do not bother to respond, I will not see it and will ignore any "pings". - jc37 08:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jc37: I really don't know what you are doing with all this. This discussion is not an RFC, as you acknowledged above when you suggested opening one; it is a talkpage discussion, which is a less formal process.
I'm not interested in a "win". I am interested in a consensus solution to a minor technical issue. That doesn't mean one editor jumping into a discussion and implementing something different to what has been discussed so far, decrying objections, and then demanding that everything be reverted unless done your way.
It's odd that you haven't withdrawn your objection when you became aware that the technical glitch you had identified had already been fixed. You now say that that closers still need more clicks than before to update the info. I don't see that, but if you have identified a problem, why not explain it so that others can assess it?
Anyway, your mention of ANI and sanctions against me means that whether or not you post to ANI, I had better do so. If you reckon that I have done something so seriously wrong that I risk sanctions, then please explain it and let the community assess whether those sanctions should be applied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at WP:ANI, asking for uninvolved admins to cast an eye over this discussion. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_eyes_please_on_a_technical_discussion_gone_wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Subpage implemented at WP:CFD/AC

I have reinstated the subpage at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, with shortcuts from WP:CFD/AC and WP:CFDAC. (plus WP:CFD/DAC).

This is the name which has been supported by 3 out of the 4 editors who took part in the discussion. If Jc37 still prefers his alternative, please feel free to open a WP:RM discussion.

Jc37 pointed above a flaw with his initial implementation, which was that the subpage could not be edited by a link from WP:CFD/W. I had already fixed this before he reverted the whole thing, and the reinstated version retains this functionality. See the current version.

Any concerns about the name of the page can be addressed by an RM, and Jc37's only concern about functionality has been addressed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added links to the new page from WP:CFDALL (where it is transcluded at the end of the page) and WP:CFDAI. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well done. Sorry I had missed them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also added a temp notice with a link back to this discussion so hat interested people can find it. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, FL, and thanks for doing that. I had left a commented explanation in the page's text, with a link to this discussion in the edit summary. But the edit history gets quickly buried on this page, so it's better to have the link explicitly on the face of the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but I thought a visible link from the new page would be most effective in drawing attention to this discussion. I had in mind to add that when Jc37 suggested an RFC of some kind. I've boxed it more smartly now. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for an RfC on vehicle categories?

There is widespread ambiguity in the vehicle category tree(s). There seems to be a mix-up between manufacturer and brand. Not the same thing. Recently, a number of categories have been renamed from "Foo vehicles" to "Foo Company Name vehicles". A couple of examples:

While formally correct and consistent with the name of a company (most often the owner of a similarly named brand), these category names are in my view both absurd and ambiguous. For the absurdity you need only to see above. We need to disambiguate between manufacturer and brand. The names above are ambiguous because "Foo Company Name buses" could mean any of the following (or possibly more):

  • Vehicles manufactured by Foo Company Name
  • Vehicles with the brand name Foo
  • Vehicles currently in operation (or owned) by Foo Company Name (such as London Transport buses)

What comes to your mind when you hear "I met a Foo on my way to work"? (Insert your own favourite car brand.) You think of a car with the name Foo on the hood/bonnet, right? In the back of your head, you might assume that it was also manufactured by the Foo Company, but that is only an assumption, although correct most of the time. But often enough it is manufactured somewhere else. A couple of examples:

  • The old Volvo S40 was manufactured by VDL Nedcar in the Netherlands, along with, and on the same assembly line as, the Mitsubishi Carisma. It is still a Volvo vehicle, isn't it?
  • The Saab convertible models were for some time manufactured in Valmet's tractor factory in Finland, and later in Steyr's factory in Austria. They are still Saab vehicles, not Valmet vehicles or Steyr vehicles, right?
  • After Saab Automobile folded, the factory was taken over by National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS). NEVS has been manufacturing the Saab 9-3 until they recently went into administration. These cars are in my view Saab vehicles manufactured by NEVS.
  • The Volvo 780 was designed and produced by Carozzeria Bertone in Italy, but it is still a Volvo vehicle.
  • After Volkswagen's takeover of Scania [AB], it's not entirely unthinkable that Scania in the future might manufacture MAN buses in their Södertälje factories. Those buses would still be MAN buses, would they not?

These are just examples off the top of my head. I'm sure there at lots of other cases.

The following is how I'd like to see the above examples categorized.

  • The Scania L113 would be categorized in Scania (brand) buses – disambiguation from the province of Scania needed – and (optionally) in Buses manufactured by Scania AB.
  • The Volvo S40 would be categorized in Volvo vehicles and Vehicles manufactured by VDL Nedcar. In the latter category, the Mitsubishi Carisma would also be found.
  • The East Lancs Cityzen would be categorized in East Lancs buses (East Lancs apparently being the brand name), and (optionally) in Buses manufactured by East Lancashire Coachbuilders.
  • The Saab 9-3 would be categorized in Saab vehicles and in both Vehicles manufactured by Saab Automobile and Vehicles manufactured by NEVS.
  • The Volvo 780 – if a separate article was created – would be categorized in Volvo vehicles and Vehicles manufactured by Carozzeria Bertone.
  • The Dennis Dagger would be categorized in Dennis (brand) vehicles – disambiguation from the given name Dennis needed – and (optionally) Vehicles manufactured by Dennis Specialist Vehicles.
  • The Volvo B12M would be categorized in Volvo buses and (optionally) in Buses manufactured by Volvo Buses.

Other remark: in several cases above, the word "vehicle" is used instead of "passenger car". I think we should change that too, but that's another discussion.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it quite strange that for three days now, nobody has responded in this discussion. Am I so spot on – or is it too darn stupid to even comment? HandsomeFella (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment On Brands/Nameplates Thank you for bringing this up; I've become so frustrated by the car categories I've been avoiding working in the area. What I see happening a lot is that categories are named Foo vehicles and it's unclear whether the intent is the brand or the company so both type of articles are placed in it. I then come in and say the article should be renamed to the corporate category based on actual usage. Really, I think most people focus on the nameplate/brand of cars and, in many cases it would be better to create a Foo (brand/nameplate) category and purge than follow my suggestion to. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Desperately pinging editors that have commented on recent vehicle-related CfD's to elicit comments: @Armbrust:, @Mangoe:, @Warren Whyte:, @Vegaswikian:, @RevelationDirect:, @Good Olfactory:, @Fayenatic london:, @Davey2010:, @RTG:.
Thanks I also threw up a notice on WikiProject Automobiles to get more input from some subject matter experts. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Great idea! Why didn't I think of that? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
HandsomeFella (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, except I'm not sure whether two categories are needed for Volvo buses (by brand and manufacturer); would there be any differences between the contents ? Good spot re East Lancs; I will support that change at the CFD. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh great, finally a comment! (cartwheeling) ;-)
    I was thinking like this: if all Foo buses are manufactured by Foo, then the individual models don't need the manufacturing category; that could instead be given to Foo buses – like this:
  • Vehicles manufactured by Foo Company
    • Buses manufactured by Foo Company
      • Foo buses
        • individual Foo bus model articles
      • Baa buses if Foo Company manufactures another brand
        • individual Baa bus model articles
    • Trucks manufactured by Foo Company if Foo Company also manufactures trucks
      • Foo trucks
        • individual Foo truck model articles

If a model, such as the Saab 9-3, is – over time or otherwise – manufactured by different companies, the article would go from zero manufacturing categories (since one manufacturer is covered by the Saab [passenger] cars being categorized in Vehicles [or Cars] manufactured by Saab Automobile) to two: both Saab and NEVS. If we would add only NEVS, that would seem to indicate that only NEVS manufactured it.

Btw, the whole vehicle/motor vehicle/car/automobile category tree is a mess, consistency-wise.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, I think your middle category of "Buses manufactured by Foo Company" is redundant because the brand name usually reflects the maker. But I see understand your goal. Do you thing that would work as an optional layer? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Inclusion within Corporate Categories I propose that all car history be inherited by the current owner of a brand. For countries, we do it differently and use Category:1985 establishments in Zaire instead of the Belgian Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo because it was known as Zaire in 1985. Others proposed that we apply the same standard to car companies and I mistakenly agreed. But keeping Aston Martin under Ford from 1987 to 2007 (but not before or after) or keeping Dodge vehicles made before 1928 outside of the Chrysler tree is unworkable. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought Scania should have had the concise term as the main. The coachbuilders, split if they are two different subjects, otherwise if it's just a rename go with a redirect to the concise term. Dennis cars same as coachbuilders. Volvo buses, lol. I think one buses is enough. ~ R.T.G 07:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do we start?

Thanks for the response. It's great that I wasn't totally in the woods. I admit that there will be a significant amount of overlap between the manufacturer and brand categories, but as I mentioned above, this can be mitigated by only placing the brand category in the manufacturer category, at least for the cases where all models of a brand is manufactured by the same company. For the rare cases where a model is (or was, over time) manufactured by two companies, that article would need both manufacturer categories to avoid the impression that it was manufactured by only one of them (see the Saab 9-3 case above).

I don't know really where to start the work. Should we start with the Automobile article? A proposed move to "Car" has already been discussed and rejected, though I would say that this is overwhelmingly the commonname. There were some claims that "car" was ambiguous, but that was dismissed.

Or should we start at "vehicle" categories? In some of those, there are only passenger cars, but what should be the new name, given that the main article, at least for the time being, is "Automobile"?

Another possibility is that we build up the vehicles/cars/trucks/motorcycle "brand" trees more or less from the beginning. I'll see if I can find a good "pilot category" to discuss.

Yet another question mark: should we use "brand" or "marque" for the categories?

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Automobile, marque. I don't feel strongly on either thoughRevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Marques/Brands vs. Manufacturers

My take on this is since they're all named Bugatti, they are sharing the same brand, but are not manufactured by the same company (or there is no company that has manufactured all models), which means that the brand category, Bugatti automobiles, cannot as a whole be put in either of the manufacturer categories. So instead we should/could categorize each article for manufacturer. This is similar to the Saab 9-3 case above, but with more models and more manufacturers. Not a dream scenario, but hopefully relatively rare. If this is not supported, maybe parenting could go both ways, as you suggest.
A side note: exactly half of the pages (26 of 52) in the category are redirects. It appears that somebody has been trying to keep a full "directory" of Bugatti models and variants here. An odd variant of WP:OR? It would be better with a "List of Bugatti automobiles" article with sources.
HandsomeFella (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I just figured this one out:
  • Bugatti automobiles
    • Bugatti automobiles manufactured by Automobiles Ettore Bugatti
    • Bugatti automobiles manufactured by Bugatti Automobili SpA
    • Bugatti automobiles manufactured by Bugatti Automobiles S.A.S.
How about that?
HandsomeFella (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
To me, the marque (or the brand name or the nameplate) is the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME most encyclopedia readers would be familiar with. Bugatti and Indian Motorcycles are weird cases since they have ended up being more like disembodied licensing rights floating from one company to another. I am flexible about how we do the subcats, as proposed above or differently, as long as all "Bugatties" are in one tree so readers can find it. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is my view too (on what readers are familiar with). Regarding the above Bugatti example, it allows for other marques being manufactured by those companies, but realistically, with such high-profile company names, chances are probably slim. We could possibly drop the "Bugatti" part in the subcategories, at least until there is a real such case, that's a matter of taste.
HandsomeFella (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
A more common example may be the Plymouth Arrow which was actually made my Mitsubishi but sold by Chrysler which was offered to fill in a gap in their product line. Right now it is only in the Chrysler tree, but I think it would make sense to also add it to the Mitsubishi tree even though it might look out of place. For such a one-off situation, I don't think I would divide Chrysler into "Category:Chryslers made by Chrysler" and "Category:Chryslers that someone else made" though.RevelationDirect (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect: simple solution. Since it's named Plymouth Arrow, it should be in Category:Plymouth vehicles. Since it was manufacured by Mitsubishi Motors, it should be in Category:Vehicles manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors. Don't forget to distinguish brand from manufacturer. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella:That certainly would accurately reflect this car example. {I was proposing we place the car in one category as a brand and in one as a manufacturer without really distinguishing why.) I'm wondering how workable Category:Vehicles manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors would be though. Wouldn't it overlap almost entirely with the "Category:Mitsubishi Motors vehicles category, with a handful of exceptions and run afoul of WP:OVERLAPPINGCAT? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed this question earlier. Yes, there will be a great deal of overlap between the marque/brand/nameplate categories and the manufacturer categories, if applied on every article. I propose that we mitigate this by either placing the brand category in the manufacturer category, or the other way around, whichever is the most suitable for the individual marque and manufacturer. See the Bugatti example above. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Btw, the Mitsubishi Motors vehicles would have to be renamed to Mitsubishi vehicles. The brand name isn't Mitsubishi Motors, it's just Mitsubishi. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to support separating manufacturer from brand because it gives a clear path forward and unmuddles some of the CFD discussions. The two issues I see are as follows:

  • Sometimes we don't know the manufacturer, and then of course we will not be able to categorize by manufacturer. For the Lincoln, that would probably be FMC, as there appears to be no separate company that runs the Lincoln operation. At least the article says that FMC is the manufacturer. For clarification, I'm not thinking of individual plants when I'm referring to "manufacturer", so Škodas would be categorized as manufactured by Škoda Auto, regardless of which plant it is manufactured in, and regardless of whether or not other cars are being made there – the exception obviously being when cars are manufactured "outside" the main corporation, such as the BMW E9 (manufactured by Karmann) and the old Volvo S40 (VPL Nedcar), mentioned elsewhere in this discussion.
    The overlapping can be mitigated by tagging the vehicles with Foo vehicles only, and then in turn tagging that category with Vehicles manufactured by Foo Company, or the other way around, whichever seems best in the individual case.
    HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Company Histories with New Owners

  • Company Histories with New Owners Take a look at the history section of the MG article. This company has been passed around like a hot potato includig from British Aerospace (1988-1994). Theoretically, anything that was produced in that time frame, could be places in the British Aerospace tree but I don't want to do research and consult multiple timelines every time I categorize an article. Also, I'm not sure a reader looking at BA would be looking for sports cars. That might be an outlier, but independent auto companies are consolidated with great frequency: Škoda Auto was purchased by Volkswagen in 1990. In both cases, I would favor the whole company history being placed under the current owner. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Let us apply your proposed system to an example: Rolls-Royce Armoured Car - with Rolls-Royce Motor Cars being a subsidiary of BMW, your proposed system would put this in Category:BMW vehicles, which would not only put it on the wrong side of World War I but would also make it a BMW vehicle made before BMW ever made any vehicles.
The latter argument would also apply to the Bentley 4½ Litre and the Bugatti Type 35, both of which would be classified under Category:Volkswagen vehicles despite both vehicles ending production before the Volkswagen was even a glimmer in der Fuehrer's eye.
Classify the Bentley 4½ Litre, the Bugatti Type 35, and the Lamborghini Countach as Volkswagen vehicles, and the resulting vomit will be smelled all over the world. There are that many enthusiasts for these vehicles and every single one of them will state vehemently that these vehicles are *not* Volkswagens, regardless of who owns the company now.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@SamBlob: Let's start with a less vomit-inducing example: Volkswagen assumed majority control of Škoda in 1994 and, in theory, I agree that nothing before that point should be categorized under the future owner. However, the current Škoda category exists entirely under the Volkswagen category today. How would you restructure Škoda to reflect the split before/after 1994? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@SamBlob: (and RD). Forget the ownership issue. It's irrelevant. Neither older RR's nor those that are made today become "BMW vehicles" just because BMW bought RR. They are still Rolls Royces. So, Rolls-Royce Armoured Car should obviously be in Category:Rolls Royce vehicles. If it was manufactured by someone else than RR, then it needs a separate category for that.
The same thing goes for the Bentley, the Bugatti, the Lambo and the Škodas. It's hard enough to keep brand and manufacturer apart, company ownership is something else, and only indirectly related.
HandsomeFella (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Who's the manufacturer of the BMW E9, for instance: BMW, or Karmann? Who made the second-generation Nash-Healey, Nash-Kelvinator, the Donald Healey Motor Company, or Pininfarina? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Fairly simple: divide the Škoda category into "before 1994" and "after 1994". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Simple. The BMW E9 belongs in Category:BMW vehicles (since it's named BMW) and in Category:Vehicles manufactured by Karmann (just like the Volkswagen Karmann Ghia). One category for the brand name, and one for the manufacturer.
The Nash-Healey belongs in Category:Nash-Healey vehicles and – since its three generations were manufactured by different companies – in Category:Vehicles manufactured by Nash-Kelvinator, Category:Vehicles manufactured by Donald Healey Motor Company, and Category:Vehicles manufactured by Pininfarina. If the article would be split into three based on generation, each article would keep its relevant manufacturer category. Again, company ownership doesn't come into play.
If the Škodas are/were manufactured by different companies, then it's better to split the Škoda category along the same lines similar to the Bugatti case above. If not, then they're all Škodas, are they not? The fact that Volkswagen Group now controls Škoda is irrelevant both to the brand categorization – that relates to the brand name of the product (which is Škoda, not Volkswagen) – and the manufacturer categorization.
Easy-peasy, if you ask me.
HandsomeFella (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Having read most of this discussion, I must say that I feel safe leaving it in you guys' hands. Thank you for clarifying these things!  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
After being away for a short break, I was intrigued as this discussion raises a few issues; some interesting, some perhaps pedantic. For me, vehicles are considered to be manufactured by the marque and that doesn't always have to mean the company that owns the brand. It is perhaps worthy of discussion to agree of the actually manufacturer should be made more obvious as many car manufacturers now now use contract manufacture. Are all Mercedes-Benz just a Mercedes, irrespective of being made by Daimler AG, Daimler-Benz, or DaimlerChrysler (depending on era)? How helpful to the reader is that, rather than just Mercedes-Benz? I suggest the category's primary use is to identify the marque, not the ownership, and the example of splitting as suggested by SamBlob is not particularly helpful to the casual user who might not know of the importance of 1994? I have no easy suggestion for marques that change hands regularly (such as MG or Lotus), and suspect this would have to be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis? Warren (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@SamBlob: I'm still interested in understanding the nitty gritty mechanics of how splitting categories by owner would work since the proposal keeps coming up in the CfD nominations by multiple editors. OK, so we divide Skoda before and after 1994. I assume we also divide Skoda to before and after when the communist government nationalized it since the ownership changed then too. Is this a reasonable breakdown of how we would apply your suggestion?:
  • Category:Automobile manufacturers named "Škoda"
    • Category:Škoda (Independent auto company)
      • Category:Škoda (Independent auto company) people
      • Category:Škoda (Independent auto company) vehicles
    • Category:Škoda (State-owned enterprise)
      • Category:Škoda (State-owned enterprise) people
      • Category:Škoda (State-owned enterprise) vehicles
    • Category:Škoda (Marque of Volkswagen)
      • Category:Škoda (Marque of Volkswagen) people
      • Category:Škoda (Marque of Volkswagen) vehicles
Or should we disambiguate them with date ranges instead? And cars that crossed these date lines would be in both categories, right? Thanks for your patience!RevelationDirect (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see that this has any relevance to vehicle categories. Actually, I don't see how any of these categories can benefit from splitting. If I read the Škoda Auto article correctly, all cars, regardless of era, have been manufactured by the same company, although it may not have been named Škoda until it was purchased by weapon manufacturer Škoda Works. So, all Škoda vehicles, except possibly for some early ones, (appears to) have been manufactured by Škoda Auto. Again, ownership of the company is irrelevant in this context.
Škoda vehicles are Škoda vehicles, regardless of who at the time owned Škoda Auto. Vehicles manufactured by Škoda Auto are vehicles manufactured by Škoda Auto, regardless of who at the time owned Škoda Auto. Škoda Auto people are/were Škoda Auto people, regardless of who at the time owned Škoda Auto, etc etc.
A parallel: Volvo vehicles didn't suddenly become Ford vehicles when Ford Motor Company bought Volvo Cars from Volvo Group back in 1999. They are still Volvo vehicles, and they are still manufactured by Volvo Cars. Likewise, they have not turned into something Chinese now that Li Shufu controls a majority of the company.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
HandsomeFella, I think I mostly agree with you as far as dicing up category trees. But SamBlob's request to not backdate corporate categories has been the dominant one from other editors on specific discussion of auto categories I introduce. I want to make sure I understand the perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by backdating. I don't think anything in my Škoda post above is backdating. If I'm reading the article correctly, it does appear to have been the same company ever since it was purchased by Škoda Works. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the right one to present this argument because I've changed my mind and no longer agree with it but here is the logic that keeps coming up:
1. The Škoda 1201 was made by a state industry of communist Hungary from 1954-1961 and had absolutely nothing to do with what was then the West German Volkswagen company.
2. However, that car now appears under Category:Volkswagen Group because they bought Škoda between 1990-2000.
3. This means that the model has been "backdated" into a category based on a future event. Or, as SamBlob put it: "There are that many enthusiasts for these vehicles and every single one of them will state vehemently that these vehicles are *not* Volkswagens, regardless of who owns the company now."
I actually don't theoretically disagree but, in practice, I find it unworkable. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I was about to suggest the following, which might solve that problem. I don't think the Škoda vehicles category should be a subcategory of the Volkswagen vehicles category. Škodas are not a special type of Volkswagens. They're Škodas. As I mentioned above, Volvo vehicles didn't suddenly become a special kind of Ford vehicles when FMC bought Volvo Cars back in 1999. They continued to be Volvo vehicles. This kind of categorization has also been adding to the confusion.
If considered necessary, Audi vehicles, Lamborghini vehicles, Škoda vehicles, etc, could have a common parent category: Vehicles by brand [currently] controlled by Volkswagen Group.
What do you think about that?
HandsomeFella (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Super luxury brands are usually stand-alone operations that a company owns as a distinct subsidiary for prestige and gets sold when cash is needed. The broader trend toward auto consolidation is different because of the cost savings with merging supply chain, design and manufacturing due to the economics of scale. That's why Volkswagen manufactures Škoda vehicles in non-Škoda plants and the original Škoda plant now makes Audis, VWs, SEATs, and Porsches. Similarly, when Ford bought Volvo, Volvos became variations of established Ford platforms. Finally, do we really want to say that Dodge is "currently controlled" by Chrysler; isn't that acquisitions pretty much settled?
All that being said, if further qualifying the category name calms concerns about backdating, I'm on board even if I don't agree with the exact wording. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of the fact that some Volvos shared platform with some Fords, but I wouldn't go so far as to calling them variations of Fords. Mondeos were for some years offered with Volvo's 5-cylinder engines, and that didn't make them Volvos. Btw, I'm amazed that there are actually articles on platforms. Pieces of sheet metal, how is that notable? But never mind.
The word "currently" should probably be omitted, which is why I placed it in brackets. I just placed it there to indicate that things do change over time. But per WP:CRYSTALBALL there's no reason to antecipate such changes.
HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Going forward with a few examples

There appears to be enough consensus here to start in a smaller scale. I'll start the work, and report back here, and see if you find the result acceptable. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. A lot of times you get more insight by actually categorizing items. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created a small category tree:

It needs to be more populated.

I also created this category:

and populated it with 11 brand subcategories. I hope Škoda enthusiasts/purists can accept the fact that Škoda is controlled by VW. Now at least we're not saying that Škoda vehicles are a special kind of Volkswagen vehicles.

A similar tree:

Please check it out.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Container categories are definitely useful. Like it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Mixed Review @HandsomeFella: I think Category:Vehicles manufactured by VDL Nedcar and Category:Vehicles manufactured by Karmann look absolutely great! They categorize the different cars those companies manufacture in a way that groups the articles in a logical way that wasn't accomplished before. Great job!
The other 4 categories though, these categories just add an extra layer of clutter to the existing category. Maybe we selectively apply this approach to brands where it doesn't just regroup the exact same articles? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
How would you feel about Category:Vehicles by Volkswagen Group‎ brand as the shorter name? That side of the categorization looks good to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. About the extra layer: I indicated this in the discussion above. Instead of tagging all articles with both Foo vehicles and Vehicles manufactured by Foo Company, I suggested that the whole brand category could be placed in the manufacturer category (or vice versa), where applicable (i.e. in most cases). We could of course tag all articles on both brand and manufacturer to avoid that, but that seems to be much work, and a bit overkill. Both layers – on top of each other or otherwise – are needed somehow, and each is in turn categorized differently. I can't come up with better alternatives than those two, but new ideas are welcome.
About shortening the category name: I think I prefer it the way it currently is, but if other editors agree with you, I'll fold.
Thanks for the review.
HandsomeFella (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Separate owners from businesses

I'm here late - as usual. Its a concept Wikipedians seem unwilling to even comprehend (ask me I'll explain further) but I like to bring it up because it is important in the real world. There is a business making particular products - the range may change from time to time but generally there is a clear connection between the products. Taking the example of Skoda, there should be

  • an article about Skoda products (whichever owner made them). They are made by just one continuing business (there will be exceptions but rarely)
  • An article about Skoda the owner in its independent phase
  • An article about Skoda the owner in its state-owned phase
  • An article about Volkswagen which owns a business (among many others) that makes Skoda vehicles

The categories under discussion follow naturally from that. See? It is simple. Eddaido (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless proven otherwise, I think one has to assume that Škoda has made its own products (Škoda Auto in the case of automobiles, Škoda Works in the case of locomotives and trams), not the owners, whoever they may have been over time. Let's say you have a company with a very widespread ownership, you don't say that the owners – various people, funds and organizations – make the products, do you? If there are only a few owners with big stakes, or even only one with 100%, it's no different.
With regards to the products, there are individual articles for the individual products, but I'm not ruling out an article compiling facts on the "product flora", with links to the various models. It sound like the start of a History of Škoda Auto article, but that probably fit in the Škoda Auto article itself, unless it grows too big.
The same goes for the various ownership eras. Unless it means that the article grows too big, it fits in the Škoda Auto article.
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't see. Skoda is the name of the business and the owner but the business is a separate entity from the owner. If you owned HandsomeFella Alpine Tours with lots of guides and customers climbing everywhere, the business is one thing, (which doesn't need you to function), you are quite another thing. I recognise few catch the concept, please have a try. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's you who don't see. We are of the same opinion: the owner and the business are two different things. Škoda Auto is the business and Volkswagen Group is the owner. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah well, no, I go to a lower level. There is a business that (mainly) makes cars. (Secondly) it belongs to Skoda Auto. Yes, Skoda Auto the owner of the (separate) business belongs to VW. Three tiers. Thanks for your interest. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see what you mean. You mean that Škoda Auto is some sort of umbrella company, and the manufacturing company is a subsidiary. I find nothing that supports that in the article, but it may of course still be so. Even if it's true, it's probably not notable enough to have an own article. The fact could of course be mentioned in the Škoda Auto article (provided it's referenced). Thanks for your input. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I mean there are always two distinct entities, the business and its owner. We generally give the owner's name to the business and use it whether we speak of the business or the owner - that's where you are at. Still rolling the two entities into one.
I have never had any interest in Skoda, it was just what you were talking of. What I mean is that there is, for example, a business founded in 1922 and it has been continuous since then and successful and today we call it JaguarCars. It has remained the same business (making motor vehicles or bits of them) all that time. It has had a number of different owners since it was begun but it is always the same business. Is that clearer? We are so near to the central point of this discussion. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Eddaido: Thanks for looking at this in a new light. I picked Skoda rather than a super luxury brand because people tend to be less emotional about them. We could have just as easily done Dodge or Kia. Also, with super-luxury brands, there really does tend to be a stand-alone business with separate factories, dealerships, and suppliers so the brands people are enthusiastic fans of tend to be atypical in the industry.
I'm not able to conceptualize exactly how your proposal would work so an example would be helpful to me. It sounds like what you're proposing would look very similar to my bulleted Skoda outline above* except that each owner/period category would have a lead article. Is that a fair summary? If not, can you cut and paste that and outline how you would set it up? (* Note: That Skoda breakdown was what I thought another editor was proposing, not my suggestion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I am going to have to do some thinking and its now late at night here. Will be back within 12 hours. Eddaido (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Eddaido: I'll try to answer some of your points (from various posts).
  • there are always two distinct entities, the business and its owner – Sure, in this case the business is Škoda Auto, and the owner is Volkswagen Group. Previously, Škoda Auto has had other owners, but it's still the same business. So what's the problem?
  • There is a business that (mainly) makes cars. (Secondly) it belongs to Skoda Auto. ... Three tiers. – Why does there have be three tiers? Why can't a company carry out its business, in this case manufacturing cars, in a single legal entity?
HandsomeFella (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Aha, (what ended up as) NUMMI is perfect I think. Fremont had this one business for 50+? years which made cars. That is the business - if you like tier one, the lowest. The business has operated on behalf of various owners (GM, GM-Toyota, Tesla) over that period but it has remained the same business, in Fremont, making cars.
A business is the totally organic group of people (it grows and shrinks and changes direction and all those things) who usually gather together much of the week and create a product, sold by the owners of the business (who pay those people for what they do and give them the means of production) planning to make a profit. A lot of effort goes into coordinating things. For the people to get their jobs done they will need various implements etc from pens to (if its manufacturing) raw materials and things like fabrication facilities to assembly lines. Other products a business could make might be legal or financial advice or designing buildings or keeping old people happy enough until they die! Eddaido (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Listen, Eddaido. I'm totally unable to make any sense of what you're saying, and I also don't realize what the relevance is for the discussion on vehicle categories. So I think I'll pass on this discussion for now. Thanks for your input. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
From my perspective, Skoda is not the same company because it used to build and design autos, now it is a brand that VW slaps onto appropriate mid-range/afforddable vehicles that they make and design. Skoda brand cars are now made in factories outside of Hungary that were never owned by Skoda and the original Škoda plant now makes Audis, VWs, SEATs, and Porsches. Similarly, Tesla is operating in one corner of the old NUMMI building, but I'm not sure I would consider it the same business. I think we disagree on what makes a "business". RevelationDirect (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your thoughts. I'd like you to know I came here to learn about these things, not to tell you how I thought you should organise WP's categories but as we've got this far my answer is not:
  • Category:Automobile manufacturers named "Škoda"
    • Category:Škoda (Independent auto company)
      • Category:Škoda (Independent auto company) people
      • Category:Škoda (Independent auto company) vehicles
    • Category:Škoda (State-owned enterprise)
      • Category:Škoda (State-owned enterprise) people
      • Category:Škoda (State-owned enterprise) vehicles
    • Category:Škoda (Marque of Volkswagen)
      • Category:Škoda (Marque of Volkswagen) people
      • Category:Škoda (Marque of Volkswagen) vehicles
I'm suggesting you have two main categories:
  • Products branded Skoda or made by Skoda
  • Manufacturers of Skoda branded products
  • Skoda people? - what is this for?
Individual car models go under the first one and individual manufacturers go under the second but the first item in the second category is the article about the Skoda business - which makes motor vehicles sold under various brand names. The article has links to its various owners (which I suspect will have always been the one limited liability incorporation and the shares have been held by:) 1. individuals 2. Czechoslovakian government 3. VW.
Your joint hang-up on a lay interpretation of "a business" takes you into all the problems you complain about above. And it would stop the aching about Porsche's owners, Bentley's owners (German) Jaguar's owners (Indian) etc. I'm happy to persist but if it only irritates you I will just watch with interest. Go on, ask me how'd I solve the probs you put forward above timed 19:36, 27 September. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
How would you solve those problems? RevelationDirect (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You see there is a well-known case where WP editors have chosen to follow the business — which had continued — and not "the company". General Motors before mid-2009 and (new) General Motors after that are two quite distinct entities, chat with any stockholder of the old one to confirm that. My guess is that because an extremely similar name was used GM / NGMCO it was easy for WP editors to ignore it? The US government could have given the new and current entity the name Tsing How Autos or something like that couldn't they. Its still the same old once-named-GM business though. Do you follow now what I am trying to explain? Best, Eddaido (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Vital resource for Wikidata

Hoi, I am adding content all the time to Wikidata based on categories. Currently there are 1192 categories who I have done for a first time.

I am horified that you are deleting categories. PLEASE, make sure that all that data, all that work is saved before a category is deleted. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello GerardM. Deleting categories doesn't mean that the articles in them are deleted. They only have that specific category removed from them. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi GerardM, the admin instructions for category discussions encourage editors to preserve wikidata links when categories are renamed and merged (I added that a few months ago). However, where a category is deleted altogether, then it should be removed from Wikidata, and HooBot does this. Do you have any examples where we could have saved your work and have failed to do so? – Fayenatic London 12:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming without using this page

Is it mandatory to use this page when one would like to rename a category, or are people free to do it otherwise when they feel it is a good idea? I could not find a clear statement about this.

If it is mandatory, I wonder why 'renaming of a category without proper discussion' is not mentioned as one of the reasons for 'speedy' action. It now seems reverting a bad move costs considerably more time than the original move. See also the example I discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#How to respond when someone makes massive changes in categorization. Bever (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that somebody can answer the questions above. As Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and categories usually touch several articles, it seems useful that people discuss changes in the category structure before implementing it. On the other hand, there is the nice principle 'Be Bold' (the Dutch counterpart of which has the interesting name, in translation, 'feel free and go ahead'). It would be nice which principle has the priority here.
Anyway, I came here because a user made a bunch of moves which were definitely 'bad', as explained in the link above. It is disturbing that other people are simply tagging the old category pages for speedy deletion even after I put an explanation about the problem on talk page of these categories.
In the meantime, I have put a list of all related categories on my sandbox page. I still have to sort out the correct codes for the criteria and write an explanation about some differences between the categories, and also it seems I need to place some template on the present categories, all of which the aformentioned user did not... Bever (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the foundation has decided that policy, guidelines and consensus don't apply to them, we are left with dealing with the cleanup. At this time, the only reasonable option is a full nomination and discussion. About speedy, are you asking for a new speedy request for bulk changes out of process so the bots can restore everything? That can be followed with a full discussion. Are you asking for a speedy undo with maybe a 12 hour wait? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Short answer... "No, while holding a CfD discussion is usually a very good idea, it is not mandatory." Longer answer... "It is OK to be BOLD, but if someone objects to a BOLD category move, then a CfD discussion should be held." Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the process with a mass message like extension

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Mass_message_like_extension_to_help_renaming_or_deleting_categories. Cenarium (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

It is now November. There are CFD's from early August awaiting closure. Is it worth opening up Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to non-administrators? Seems like that might get things moving again...

To be sure, a bad close is worse than no close since it just leads to angry relistings and trips to DRV, but the length of time on getting a closure is getting extreme, so it might be time to give it a try. Non-admins can already move Category pages, so it shouldn't be any more abusable than things are now. SnowFire (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've encouraged a few non-admins who participate at CFD to try closing, by offering my support to do the implementation in the case of rename/merge/delete outcomes, but they have so far declined. Therefore I can't see any mileage in opening it up further. – Fayenatic London 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Template broken

While on a wikibreak, I noticed that the contents of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion are not updating and moving to speedy deletion after the 48 hours in the holding pen. I'm not able to figure this out right now. So if someone can look at this and get it working, that would be appreciated. A null edit seems to update the time and change the category when called for. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a general problem which has existed for years, and is nothing to do with the template: categories that are time-dependent are not updated automatically, but only when the page is reparsed. A WP:NULLEDIT to each of the member pages will update the categorisation for that specific page, but Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) (courtesy Joe Decker) can help here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look in the next day, Null Bot task 5 should be doing something there once per day, but if it's not.... --j⚛e deckertalk 21:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a problem (related to an OS upgrade) that left most of Null Bot, well, null. I've manually restarted a handful of tasks including this one, the others should follow along at their usual daily schedule. Thanks for the ping, and I'm sorry this went awry without my noticing. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with complicated nomination

This is rather embarrassing, but I'm absolutely baffled as to how to go about this, and as a comparative CfD novice I'm going to have to call for help. The preliminary discussion here is the basis for this nomination; there it was agreed that a reorganisation of party categories was warranted, and I am now looking to proceed to the next step. It seems to me that this should all be included within a single nomination, but I am not sure how to do this as it includes renaming and splitting. The nomination needs to include:

I of course would have more to say on the nomination itself, and it would be quite likely to shift around a bit during the discussion, but at the moment I am seeking help on how it should actually be formatted. Frickeg (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • My suggestions:
  1. Install Twinkle (and practice using it by proposing a simple deletion/rename of a category).
  2. Do the split you propose by creating the subcats and moving articles down into them. This doesn't require CFD discussion, but if some articles would be in lots of the subcats then get clear agreement at the wikiproject that this is wanted.
  3. Prepare a draft CFD nomination in a subpage of your user page (and get an experienced CFDer to check it).
  4. Use Twinkle to propose the first rename. Then immediately replace the nomination generated by Twinkle with the nomination you have prepared.
  5. Add CFD tags to all the affected categories (checking that they link to the correct discussion).
Note: I'm not sure what the difference is between "rename" and "move" in your proposal. Hope this helps. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I have Twinkle already, but don't use it for this kind of thing much, and I wasn't sure of the protocol on reorganisations like this. (Difference between move and rename: in move, the original category remains as the parent category.) Frickeg (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The formatting of multiple categories in CFD nominations can be quite varied. It helps if you include the format
*[[:Category:Foo]] to [[:Category:Bar]]
(as you did above) because, if approved, this can be pasted into the Working page as a bot instruction.
I've never used Twinkle. To prepare a multiple CFD nom, I tag one category page first, copy the nomination template from there, paste it into the log, and end my rationale with "please wait while I expand this nomination". Having saved it, I then edit it, copying and pasting the line with the category links, and manually editing the subsequent lines according to the categories required.
In this case, you have already done most of the work right here. So, tag one category and add it to the log, saving that nomination. It's probably clearest to introduce a generic discussion title as part of that first tagging, e.g. "Australian politicians" in {{subst:cfr|New South Wales Liberal politicians|Liberal Party of Australia members of the Parliament of New South Wales|Australian politicians}} . Then copy the list of proposals above, and paste the list into the nomination, before the rationale. Then tag the other pages, being sure to link to the nomination section as it was named in the log (here, "Australian politicians"). For the split, there is no need to list the whole lot when tagging the page. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you tremendously. If one of you two knowledgeable people could run an eye over the nomination I've started, that would be great. Frickeg (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How to discuss categories for non-diffusion

I only see delete, rename, merge, etc. I'd like to nominate Category talk:Creative Commons-licensed journals#Non-diffusing subcategory of category open access journals. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Opposed nominations

Should the opposed nominatins be moved to a full discussion page, or at least separated into sub-sections here. They are getting lengthy and very difficult to navigate! Sionk (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How should I proceed?

The cats

both have the wording that "As with real children, the term refers to characters who are understood to be biologically and/or chronologically under age 21 during the course of a film (book or story) in which they are depicted." This statement is extraordinarily incorrect. Neither science or numerous religions consider a 20 year old (or 18 for that matter) a child. I would like to propose that this wording be changed but as I look at the instructions on the project page I can't find any that apply to this specific situation. If any of you can explain how I should proceed it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree, I certainly don't think of Alex as a child!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Changing category inclusion criteria and description pages isn't a CFD issue (which involves structurally renaming or deleting whole categories), but rather more akin to the ordinary editing of articles. But given that changing the description(s) and inclusion criteria would affect multiple articles, you should probably try first posting your question at one of the wikiprojects linked to from the categories' talk pages (and cross-link to the other ones) to see if you can get a clear consensus for narrowing the categories' scope (or at least a good explanation as to why they've been set up that way). postdlf (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Postdif. That helps a bunch. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject category tree

Hello everyone. I am currently working on maintaining the WikiProject category tree, starting from Category:WikiProjects and continuing from there. My goal is to have a reliable, up-to-date categorization of WikiProjects that will ultimately serve as the basis for an auto-updating WikiProject directory. My question has to do with how WikiProjects themselves are categorized. Often, WikiProjects will have their own categories; these projects obviously belong to their self-named categories. However, WikiProjects can also belong in categories grouping together several different WikiProjects, usually styled "X WikiProjects". My question: if a WikiProject has its own category, should the WikiProject page belong to just its self-named category and have that category sorted into the various topical categories? Or should both the WikiProject page and corresponding category belong to the topical categories? In other words, should Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists belong to just Category:WikiProject Women scientists, or should it belong to both that category and also Category:Women-related WikiProjects? Your thoughts are welcome. Harej (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:EPON says "editors should decide by consensus for each category tree which solution makes most sense". So you could start by looking at a range of wikiprojects (and task forces etc) and see how they are currently categorized. DexDor (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Non admin help needed with cleanup

If you can spare some time, can everyone look at manual splits and jump in? The oldest ones here go back to April of last year! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested

{{admin help}} The backlog here is growing. BMK (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on the backlog list. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

{{admin help}} "Speedy" typically means 48hrs, no? Based on WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations, it looks like the bot for Speedy renaming hasn't run for a week. —Patrug (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is broken. It is the normal admin overload. These all get reviewed after the discussion period and then moved so that the bot can process the requests. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Burials in New York City by place

What does the category "Burials in New York City by place" mean and how is it different from "Burials in New York City"? Isn't New York City already a place? Is it meant to read "Burials in New York City by location"? Why do we need two names, one intuitive and the other confusing? Can someone point me to the discussion that created the two, so I can get an idea of what they are for and why there are two. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_17#Category:Burials_by_city. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The revision history of the category [1] already had a link to that CfD discussion. However, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Categorising by place of burial for a follow-up discussion. I am certainly open to changing "place" to "location", and believe I could do this as a revision to my own closing of that CfD. – Fayenatic London 15:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): please comment there. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Future of CFD

The implementation of the category move feature in its current form has rendered the nomination process obsolete, except perhaps as a mechanism for soliciting feedback, and exacerbated the problem of out-of-process moves. When coupled with the normally beneficial activities of bots such as user:RussBot, which dutifully moves articles from redirected categories to their target categories, the potential for deliberate or inadvertent disruption has increased greatly and there is virtually no incentive anymore to actually adhere to any process.

Consider a recent example:

In this case, only about 30 articles were affected... however, nothing prevents this from recurring on a much larger scale, affecting hundreds or thousands of articles. Quite simply, in the absence of an enforceable requirement to use the WP:CFD process, there is virtually no incentive to continue to nominate categories for discussion.

I am starting this discussion with the aim of discussing, and perhaps eventually reaching consensus on, the following question: Is the the CFD process required for all category moves, some category moves, or no category moves?

  • All category moves – We must either disable the category move feature, or at a minimum move-protect all categories.
  • Some category moves – When shall the CFD process be required, and when shall it be voluntary? For example, if we require use of the process for any category that has been discussed previously, contains more than X articles, contains biographies of living people, is part of a larger scheme (e.g., Category:People by nationality), etc., we would move-protect categories on a case-by-case basis.
  • No category moves – WP:CFD would become a venue for voluntary solicitation of feedback on category moves, similar to WP:RFC, or it would be closed altogether.

Alternative suggestions are welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The category move facility has not rendered the CFD process obsolete. CFD is still needed (afaik) to delete or merge a category or rename a category without leaving a redirect. CFD/CFDS is still appropriate if the nominator thinks it's best to have a discussion before any rename. IMO (to minimise problems like that described above) the guidance should say that to rename a category CFD should be used (i.e. not mention the move facility).
Giving this facility to all users was predicted to cause problems - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive262#Category_pages_will_be_movable_soon, but WMF went ahead anyway. DexDor (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It could be similar to WP:Requested moves, which has been used to debate move requests with 20+ articles involved. You are not technically required to use it, but it is expected that you use it for "controversial" discussions. I don't see a need to impose procedural requirements for uncontroversial category moves, but it is definitely good to encourage discussion before carrying out category moves that could be highly consequential or controversial. Harej (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
CFD is still relevant for moves - there needs to be a process so that meaning is not inadvertently lost. However the current process is weak, as only a limited number of people participate in the discussion, and interested parties that have contributed to the articles affected are not, as a general rule, consulted. Ephebi (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Request with tagging

I need help tagging all the categories here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_30#Category:Male_film_actors_from_Shanghai Timmyshin (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

People from Upper Merion

I would like to create a subcategory of Category:People from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. I do not know whether to call it Category:People from Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania or Category:People from Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. I should point out there exist Category:People from Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania and Category:People from Upper Providence Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and other townships there that support either name, and I assume this is a much bigger issue. I will point out that all of Lower Merion and Lower Merion Township and Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania are redirects to Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and similarly for Upper Merion etc.

Has a convention been established? The existing write-up isn't really clear on this detail. I assume we follow the full article names, and that moving existing People of X Township categories to People of X Township, Y County, Z etc. would not be controversial, and even better, there's a bot for that. Choor monster (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

New Category created - not sure it belongs

Greetings. A new category, Category:Forever Resorts, was created today. The only reason I noticed is that it appeared on my watchlist on a page I keep a look at. This is not a new user creating this category. I'm not sure that this should be deleted, but to me it looks like a form of advertising for the company, Forever Resorts. Suggestions? Onel5969 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a form of advertising - just me trying to organize the many links that were connected on wiki. At first I thought there were two (a "Forever Resorts" that is an actual resort, and a division, oddly enough, to a cosmetics company owned by mormons), but it looks like there is only the division. Earflaps (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Please advice me on what to do when I think a category was deleted incorrectly. I am talking about the 3 umbrella deletion discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 22 regarding birth and death categories. In my opinion these should not have been deleted as they are part of a category tree, a system, so to speak.

Please see User_talk:MER-C#Century_related_categories that I am aware that deletion review is not for disagreement with the discussion. Although I do think the decision was made hasty and based on too few opinions, and the discussion should have been relisted, the issue is not strictly procedural.

I could, of course, always crate the category anew, and add back the article, but some bureaucrat could decide that such action should be summarily reverted.

Just to remind everybody here that there was a time I was very active on W:CFD and still remember the rules. Debresser (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Umbrella nomination for renaming – Tag first or create the CFD subsection first?

I am nominating 75 categories for renaming ("Open air museums in XXX" to "Open-air museums in XXX").

The rather confusing instructions say to tag each category first, including the Cfd section name, and then "Create the CFD subsection". Until I create the CFD subsection, I don't know what its name is, right? So how can I first tag the category correctly? It would be nice to have an example of what the tag should look like for an umbrella nomination. Should the tag look like this?

"{{subst:cfr|Open-air museums in Arizona|Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 12 (section)}}"

Is "Cfd section" the same as "CFD subsection"? If so, why don't we use consistent terminology throughout the instructions? I have AWB set up to quickly tag all 75 categories, but I want to get it right on the first try. Chris the speller yack 04:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks for raising this. I have changed "subsection" to "section". You can decide the name of the Cfd section in advance. The tag should look like this: 
"{{subst:cfr|Open-air museums in Arizona|Cfd section}}"
However, for these categories you can use the Speedy page WP:CFDS, which is simpler as well as quicker. As you hope for no discussion there, no section name is needed. Tag them like this:
"{{subst:cfr-speedy|Open-air museums in Arizona}}"
– Fayenatic London 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That makes a lot more sense. Chris the speller yack 05:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
When you come to list them on the Speedy page, justify the first one as C2A and C2C, with a link to the hyphenated parent. Then add an extra * to indent the remainder, and omit the rationale and signature for those. – Fayenatic London 05:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. Chris the speller yack 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

New or possible categories

Do we have to create a category first to discuss it or is it also okay to discuss an idea for a new category here prior to creating it? Or should that be done somewhere else? Can't figure out where. 64.228.88.84 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends. If it's a pretty specific category, then a Wikiproject dealing with the subject would be a good place to propose it. If you're thinking of a system of categories, then a category-related guideline talk page might be better. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There are several guideline talk pages, not all are well-watched. I won't list them all, but they include: Wikipedia talk:Categorization (with 593 watchers); Help talk:Category (186 watchers); and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories (182). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a point that is currently completely absent from the main project page. Categories "for discussion" apparently does not actually mean "discussion about categories", but — per already the opening sentence, "categories for deletion, merger or renaming".
I suppose the nomenclature is stuck by this point; but we really should have some notes on the project page itself on where to go if you in fact are only looking for discussion. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Assistance in tagging requested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_21#US_military_bases_and_facilities_to_installations

A 2010 CfM directed that 'Military bases' and 'Military facilities' be merged as 'Military installations'. The link you'll see at the CfM above however did not list all of the hundreds of categories in the 'bases' and 'facilities' categories individually. I'm now trying to list all those cats so that the request can be put through and the whole category standardized. I'd like to request some tagging help at the first subcategory I'm working on, Category:Military installations of the United States by country. Any questions feel free to ask here or at my talkpage. Any and all assistance much welcomed (including with barnstars!!). Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Special Collections

What exactly is the defining characteristic of this category? Its page says: "Special Collections embraces a wide range of institutions, including rare book libraries, archives, and other cultural heritage institutions." That seems extremely vague to me. BMK (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Special collections makes it sound like a real thing, maybe even a distinct thing, but it's being applied not simply to articles about special collections, but rather institutions that happen to have special collections. Never mind whether their articles even mention that fact. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting mass moves by sock accounts

Prolific sockmaster Tobias Conradi has mass renamed categories in addition to a load of articles and templates. Could you please take a look at this discussion and see if the bots could be used to move the categories back? A couple of examples of categories at their new titles include: Category:Protests by administrative territorial entity which was moved from the concise Category:Protests by territory and Category:Former administrative territorial entities by continent moved from Category:Former territorial entities by continent. If the new names are deemed to be right, at least let someone in good standing make that judgment! —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: what do you think? The edits in question can be seen here and the resulting hierarchy, moved without consensus, is currently at Category:Administrative territorial entities. I looked at this account's more recent minor changes to categorisation and IMHO they appeared to be constructive, so I would be inclined to ignore G5 in those cases, but this "Administrative territorial" set of categories does not match the naming of the articles within them. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There's also this account in addition to Eldizzino mentioned above. This is the relevant SPI, and has some background info. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Category rename: conspiracy theory

I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists. It is about “Persons who have criticized or tried to debunk conspiracy theories.” The category should be re-titled “Category:Critics of conspiracy theories”. Btw, I placed it in Category:Criticisms, which I changed to Category:Critics. (When I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists, I didn’t know that Category:Critics existed.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you created the category in the last 28 days, you can use {{CFR-speedy}} with reason C2E (author request). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done per C2C. Avicennasis @ 11:24, 26 Av 5775 / 11:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulk speedy rename

Someone has been changing, for example, Category:1943 comic debuts to Category:1943 comics debuts, then manually editing all the relevant pages, which is a long and tedious way to do it and leaves us with messy duplication, like Category:1973 comic debuts to Category:1973 comics debuts. Equally templates that automatically generate these categories have been changed [2] before everything has been fixed, leading to things like populated non-existent categories, like Category:1983 comics debuts. It is a mess and there are now hundreds of red category links on pages.

Although the discussion of this on the Comics Project talk page has been minimal and after the fact [3], I created the bulk of those categories (after extensive discussion with others in the project a few years ago now) and don't have any strong objections (the reason I went for "comic" is that it is singular and referring to the specific comic that debuted, but I understand there could be potential confusion although the context is clear enough). My main concern now is to get the current mess resolved asap, without wasting editor's time with a lot of rather dull edits [4].

What we need fixing are:

Some in:

All in:

For a bit more background see this discussion.

Thanks for the help. Emperor (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:recap

{{recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Making it easier to list containerizations, etc.

I've tweaked the templates and instructions to make it easier to list containerizations and other more unusual discussions, by using {{subst:Cfd}}, or whatever.

This was previously only possible by subst'ing an existing template, then modifying it after the fact.

Uses of |type= will cause categorization in Category:Categories for general discussion for want of a better place. No bots are doing anything with it at present.

If would be possible to constrain this to a list of acceptable values of |type=, using #switch, and to more specifically categorize them, if this is desired.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Regional English Spellings with the WP:C2A and WP:C2C Speedy Criteria

  • C2A Typographic and spelling fixes ... Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C.
  • C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree ... This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
  • My Interpretation My assumption was always that this criteria was usable for imposing Australian English spellings onto Australian specific categories and that the qualification was to prevent, say, an American editor from speedy nominating Canadian categories to match the American spellings. That way, we don't need to do a full CFD nomination when there is a clear regional spelling variation but we protect a kind of spelling imperialism. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you think? @Sawol, Armbrust, and AusLondonder:Several recent nominations have been opposed though due to different interpretations of the criteria. What do we think this last sentence means? What do we think it should say?
    • I totally agree, User:RevelationDirect. I've used Speedy CFD in such cases before without opposition. I always interpreted C2A and C2C that way. I think it is important to protect regional spelling differences, and ensure, for example, American English is not imposed on articles and categories related to India, which teaches and uses British spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that speedy can be used in these cases. The key phrase I believe is "if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C." This would be the case in changing an Australian-specific category to Australian English spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Question @Armbrust: At least among the editors in this discussion, there is a consensus that the current policy for WP:CFDS allow for enforcing regional English spellings within countries that have clear preferences. Are you comfortable withdrawing your objection to this speedy nomination or do you still have policy concerns?RevelationDirect (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I too agree that speedy should be used here. The point of the prohibition is to prevent (alliteration!) renames that wouldn't necessarily be in line with local spelling, e.g. "Harbours in Ohio" to "Harbors in Ohio", and renames that aren't tied to a specific English variety, e.g. "Tires" to "Tyres". not considered errors is definitely not meant to prevent WP:TIES-related renames. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

    Category:Sculptures of men and Category:Sculptures of women

    I am not sure which template to use, but I think we should discuss these two categories and whether they are 1) necessary or 2) named appropriately. Sculptures of people (and usually animals) are often called statues. Are Category:Statues of men and Category:Statues of women more appropriate, or even encyclopedic? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

    "Statue" is a subset of sculpture, typically understood to be life size or larger, freestanding and fully in the round (i.e., not in relief), and of more durable materials such as stone or metal. "Sculpture" would embrace any carving without those limitations. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    OK, then perhaps I will create subcategories by country/state, otherwise these categories will eventually reach thousands of entries each. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Not sure I really buy that definition of statue, as to size. Lots of statues are smaller than life size. If they're small enough to put on a bookshelf we call them statuettes, but a 1/2-scale statue of a person or horse would usually still be called a statue. They're very common in gardens, and catalog[ue]s that supply them for this market usually call them "statues" not "statuettes". That said, I agree that "sculpture" is more inclusive, and we wouldn't want to rename in this way, though "statues" subcats of the "sculptures" categories probably should exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it might be best to include Category:Statues of men as a subcategory of Category:Sculptures of men. In the meantime, I am going through sculpture categories and marking those of men and women with appropriate categories. They can always be diverted to subcategories once created. I might also point out that there are many sculptures of children, so I am not sure if somehow conveying male vs. female is better than men vs. women. (?) ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    How to tag stub templates being CfDed?

    In addition to handling categories, WP:CFD handles the workload that WP:SFD used to handle: stub categories (obviously), but also stub templates. This in itself is not a problem.

    It's clear what to do to nominate a stub category (use {{cfd}}), but there doesn't seem to be a clear description of how to nominate a stub template for deletion (e.g. see TfD talk recently). This used to use {{sfd-t}} and {{sfd-r}} back in the days when SfD still existed. Those templates still exist nowadays (and there was TfD consensus to keep them around), but they seem to have been blanked since (and thus aren't particularly useful for CfD tagging).

    Are the old SfD templates still the correct way to nominate a stub template for deletion? If so, they should probably be mentioned in the CfD header, and unblanked (possibly with tweaks to work with the CfD process). If not, what's the correct alternative? {{cfd}} itself doesn't work very well on a template (for obvious reasons). --ais523 07:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

    See the TfD talk you referred to. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

    "Stale"?

    I nominated a bunch of categories for speedy renaming a week ago. There were formal objections, so they didn't go through. After sitting in the "Opposed" section for a couple of days, they were removed by Armbrust as "stale". Why weren't they moved to a full discussion? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    See the last paragraph of the instructions at WP:CFDS (beginning with "Contested requests become stale ..."). It's no one's responsibility to move opposed speedies to a full discussion, and if no one does it, the categories get removed from WP:CFDS—I think it's generally done seven days after there are no further edits. If you, as the nominator, want to pursue it as a full discussion, you should start that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Anyone looking for a speedy category rename project to work on?

    Is anyone looking for a speedy category rename project to work on? In this discussion", the by-country "visitor attractions" categories were renamed to "tourist attractions". However, there is still a mountain of categories for subnational entities (states, provinces, districts, regions, municipalities, cities, etc.) that are currently named "visitor attractions". These can easily be found by searching the subcategories of the top level country categories in Category:Tourist attractions by country. It will be a big job to get them all nominated and changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

    DRV on Category:High school dropouts

    There is a DRV here on the above category which may be of interest to those involved with categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

    Help required at AfC

    Hello. The page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, bizarrely, also handles category requests.
    As you will see if you go to the page, there are several category requests that have been languishing for weeks - quite simply, none of the regular reviewers know what to do with these. I was hoping people here could assist in these assessments? If you are able to make an assessment but are not sure about the technical aspects of closing a request (we tend to use an automated scripts for processing those requests), just leave a comment and I'll should be around to implement your advice within a day or two.
    In addition, there is an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation about creating a dedicated page for category requests. All comments so far have been positive. I was wondering if folk here may have opinions and, if there is consensus to create a new page, may be able to assist in creating such a page and associated guidelines for reviewers.
    Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Village Pump - Proposal to Eliminate Categorizing

    The Village Pump has an initial proposal to end categorization. Your input (pro/con/other) is welcome at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Categorizing. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    Category:MIT Engineers football

    Not sure where it's appropriate to discuss this so I figured I'd try here. I was looking through category pages for non-free images when I came across Category:MIT Engineers football. The page seems to be a combination mini article/category page which includes a inline citation to some of the text. I know sometimes general descriptions are added to category pages, but not sure if something like this is considered acceptable. Anyway, if this is the wrong venue to discuss this kind of thing, then I'd appreciate a push in the right direction. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    @Marchjuly: No, this looks like someone tried to put the main article in the category namespace. Categories can have like a sentence describing the contents at most. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking a look RevelationDirect. Does that mean the additional text should be removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Marchjuly: Yes, feel free to remove everything but the first sentence and the categories at the bottom. (If you felt so inclined, you could also create the MIT Engineers football article with that content. I would normally suggest that directly to the author, but Wcrosby is inactive.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    OK. Extraneous text removed and edit sum includes link to this discussion. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    Question before I make a mess

    There is a Japanese political party that renamed itself last month from Party for Future Generations to Party for Japanese Kokoro. Some of the people listed at Category:Party for Future Generations politicians left the party before it changed names. Is it ok just to move the category to the new name Category:Party for Japanese Kokoro politicians? Or is there a better way to approach this? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Athomeinkobe:: If the political party changed names because it reformed and changed policy, I would definitely go with two categories, the older one being a subcategory of the new name. For a straight rename, like with alumni of a college, we normally put everyone under the new name. You might want to check with the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics to see if they know of specific examples with political parties. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    @RevelationDirect:, thanks for your comments. There has been some turnover in membership and shifting of policy, but saying that in Japanese politics is like saying McDonalds has been selling some burgers. My feeling though is that they have not changed drastically though. I will take it to the Japan and Politics project pages to get some further input from the subject experts. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    Category redirects: when to create, how to delete

    I have two related questions about category redirects, one of which is perennial. First, I recall a longstanding consensus not to use category redirects except for likely errors and irregular naming (e.g., Category:People from Chicago). Now it seems old category names are typically being kept as redirects after a move, much like in mainspace. Did consensus change on this? (I don't really object to the practice; it just seemed like an abrupt reversal.) Second, has there ever been any consensus about whether to discuss category redirects at CfD or RfD? At RfD, I've often told readers to bring them here, since they're arguably not true redirects. They're soft redirects, but they're also actual categories in that articles can be placed in them. Given that, and the regular corpus of editors interested in categories, I think CfD is the more logical place. They've certainly been discussed in both places, but official guidance may be wise. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    deletion of deprecated categories?

    Discussion at Talk:Pac-12 Conference reached consensus that the "Pacific-12 conference" name was incorrect and should be replaced with "Pac-12 conference." These naming convention changes largely have been completed across articles, templates, and categories.

    There are ~61 empty "* Pacific-12 *" categories (moved to/replaced by "* Pac-12 *" equivalent categories). Some examples:

    Should these empty and never-to-be-used "* Pacific-12 *" categories be CfD'd? Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

    RfC: Sub-categories of Category:People by former country

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    There is consensus for "from" The majority opinion is that its accurate and reads better. AlbinoFerret 01:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

    Should sub-categories in Category:People by former country using "People ..." use "People of X" or "People from X"? Examples: Category:People from the Kingdom of Sardinia‎, Category:People from the Kingdom of Serbia‎ versus Category:People of the Roman Empire‎, Category:People of the German Empire‎. From a linguistic POV, "People of" points to citizens (representatives), "People from" points to emigreés (not direct representatives). All categories using "from" include citizens.--Zoupan 10:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Comment Disagree. The subject is former countries. Note that the 19th and 20th century saw major changes in states and borders. Many individuals were born in other countries, then moved to, or simply changed their country, hence the use of "of" rather than "from".--Zoupan 08:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Categorizing is a system for sorting persons, places and things by the applicable category, be it country, age, species, etc; thus categorizing (or sorting) people by country is actually correct. I'm concerned that using from could be a bit confusing. Do we use from for place of birth, current residence, or where they once lived? What if they were born on a US military base in South Korea, raised in Japan, moved to Germany as an adult, and eventually to the US where they spent 10 years and died? Where would that person be "from"? Do we add a category for each country, or just country of birth? Perhaps I'm not understanding the purpose of the category and that is what actually needs to be better defined. Atsme📞📧 11:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly, only individuals representing the country would be included, thus, of. The use of from is problematic, and would lead to overcategorization.--Zoupan 05:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    That is not true. The majority of categories use "of".--Zoupan 05:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - The elephant in the room here is the amount of ethno-trivia we allow in categorization ... a form of over-categorization. It often does not matter what nation someone is "from". Most people should be categorized by what they did... not where they came from. Their ethno-nationality is often irrelevant and non-defining. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    And that is why one should categorize into "of" (representative) and not "from".--Zoupan 08:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Neither. The format that should be used is "FOO people", as in Category:East German people or Category:Ottoman people. This is the standard format for people from current countries, so why should it not also be used for former countries? If there is no acceptable/unambiguous adjective, the name of the entity can be used, as with Category:Republic of Venice people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. I think I was mentally comparing these to people by location categories such as from cities, states, etc., but they are more akin to nationality categories, which use "FOO people". I wonder why these are almost all different...it could be it was thought that, for example, "Second French Republic people" would be more awkward, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Neither Were I to suggest a possible wording it would be "People associated with historical (former country)" allowing any person who has a clear association with such a country to be listed, but specifically excluding living persons for whom our standard should remain self-identification. Collect (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People_associated_with. There has been consensus that this sort of wording should not generally be used in category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • See that guideline and note precisely what it deals with - and it appears that "associated with (historical country)" is not what it is intended to deal with. It deals with people associated with (a specific person or movement) such as people who were associated with Communist front organizations or people associated with John Dillinger or the like (examples where the guideline would actually apply)- I trust you recall my strong stance against any imputation in any form of "guilt by association" which is what that part of the guideline deals with. Collect (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2015 (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.

    Ambiguity of Category:Directors

    Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.

    This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

    Categories with few entries and unlikely growth?

    This category contains only three articles with likely no others to be added any time soon because of its very narrow scope. Should it be listed or are three articles enough? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

    I think you could nominate it for deletion. The number of television series by one person can not be that high, for a collaboration of two names people it is even less likely to grow. Even if kept, the category should be renamed: created by Dan Povenmire and Jeff "Swampy" Marsh. "Swampy"...? Debresser (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

    The logs for each day have a hidden note: "Please do not add new nominations here. Use the current day's NEW NOMINATIONS section (to properly order entries and avoid edit conflicts). Thank you for your cooperation." and below it another: "Please add the newest nominations below this line". The link "THIS LINK" on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion goes to the section after it, so this text isn't visible, and the default edit summary is the title of the previous discussion. It looks like the intention was for a "NEW NOMINATIONS" section heading between the two messages but this is not being added. It wouldn't avoid edit conflicts completely (as they occur without it), but it would avoid the misleading default edit summary and the note that new nominations should be added to the top of the list would be visible. Alternatively the link could be changed to section=1 and the date and both notes and all sections would be visible (this may increase edit conflicts, but usually not much as most edits are new nominations). Peter James (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

    What went wrong today was this edit, which I fixed here. Please check if the issue still exists? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, it's fixed - I'd noticed it wasn't there for previous days but hadn't checked the page histories, on the other pages it was removed at the end of each day. Peter James (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

    MOS:RETAIN, an argument to avoid in categorization discussions

    Background: In the midst of a CfD, I posted a request for clarification on how CfD approaches some content style guidelines being used as !vote rationales here, namely the two provision of MOS:ENGVAR at MOS:STRONGNAT (a.k.a. MOS:TIES) and MOS:RETAIN (the derived MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATERET could occasionally be raised, e.g. about Category:September 11 attacks). And Good Olfactory responded to this, with regard to STRONGNAT.

    Extended content
    If I missed some consensus discussion by which it was determined that the category namespace does in fact have t comply with things like STRONGNAT/ENGVAR, please point me at it; I pre-concede that I'm absent from CfD sometimes for long stretches. Obviously, this namespace complies with MoS's general rules, but the *VAR/*RETAIN types of provisions all are highly specific in their wording to being about article content disputes. If we are certain they apply here, their wording needs to be tweaked a little (and this is good time to approach that, since WT:MOS has a thread open near the top of it about centralizing and cross-normalizing all those provision, which have been slowly advice-forking over the last several years in unconstructive ways. (Please ping me on replies to this.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

    The response was:

    I don't think there was a single key discussion in which it was decided that STRONGNAT applied to categories, but I have seen it be argued and applied with relative frequency at CFD going back a number of years now. I'm guessing that this is so well accepted that we might be able to say it's uncontroversial now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

    It seems make more sense to move this discussion to the talk page, because it's detailed. I slept on this, and studied it.

    STRONGNAT does seem to apply (often, anyway) to Category namespace. But RETAIN (and its DATERET variant) can only exert some secondary-effect, indirect influence here – because of our default tendency to normalize to what is used at the main article for it, when cat. conventions don't override this. But that's it; trying to apply STRONGNAT directly at CfD is like trying to assert an Australian legal principle in court in China. I more detail:

    Relative frequency is probably enough for STRONGNAT in particular, in combination with the fact that it is logically extensible from its original raison d'etre. It is a rationale to prefer one otherwise arbitrary English dialect variant over another, to prevent editwarring at articles and to prevent weirdness like British topics having articles in American English, etc. That sometimes extrapolates fairly well to categories, because of our default tendency to normali[s|z]e spelling and such in category names to what is used at the main article for the category's topic (though -ize vs. -ise is not entirely a US vs. UK issue). While STRONGNAT is written in terms of articles, there does seem to be a consensus that the principle applies directly to categories in obvious cases (e.g. we would not have "Category:Neighbourhoods of New York"); it's a WP:COMMONSENSE matter. However, sometimes consistency with the surrounding category schema overrides this idea; there's often a tension between these concerns, and STRONGNAT is not a "magic bullet" at CfD, especially if the category is broader than the main article for it, or the majority of the articles presently in it (which might be skewed even just due to the activity of a single editor).

    MOS:RETAIN, by contrast, does not apply outside mainspace*. It is a last-resort instruction to prefer at a particular article the choice, between multiple acceptable styles, that was used in the first non-stub version of it, when there is no clear consensus on which should be used. By design, RETAIN specifically does not apply across sets of articles (i.e. categories). It prevents forcing arbitrary consistency across the titles and content of multiple articles. Such consistency is generally desirable in a category naming schema. Not all article rules apply to categories, or vice versa. (And there is no such thing as a stub vs. Start-class-or-better version of a category.)
    [* It can have an indirect, secondary effect. E.g., if a template for transclusion in articles included the word "colour", we would give a parameter to generate "color" on demand, or vice-versa, because the resulting text of the template becomes part of the main article content. This concern does not apply to categories.]

    The fact that certain people frequently make incorrect arguments (like RETAIN ones at CfD) doesn't make them correct interpretations of WP:P&G simply because they keep doing it. Otherwise we would not have pages like WP:AADD, etc., but we do have these pages because repetition of the same bad argument is simply a particular and persistent fallacy that has to be addressed. We really need a WP:AACD for categorization discussions.
    There are plenty of others to add to such a list, including WP:COMMONNAME and other WP:AT arguments; they're exactly like RETAIN in this regard, being rules for a particular context (article titles this time) that does not apply to categories except through secondary influence when we attempt to normalize category names to article names absent a schema convention or other reason not to.

     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

    missing entry

    According to Category:CBA it's being discussed for a speedy move, but the link through to its entry does not reveal any move proposal on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. What has happened to it? Is it moved or not moved? Kerry (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

    @Kerry Raymond: For the record: the category is now at Category:Commonwealth Bank, and the version with the CFD template is here; the rationale was listed for speedy discussion here. By the time you looked, it had been removed [5] and listed for processing by a bot [6]. This normally happens pretty quickly, but on this occasion the bot seems to have stalled and needed to be restarted a day or two later.
    If you had known to try "What links here" it could have led to to the Working page with the bot instruction, but you wouldn't have seen the rationale.
    Well, I hope this helps somewhat. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. I had no particular concern about what it ended up being called but as I was using the category for articles I was writing, I just needed to know what was going on. Kerry (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

    Cydebot is working again on Retain

    For info, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Retain (shortcut: WP:CFDWR) is again working automatically. This is for categories where there was a decision to keep; it's worth using when a long list of categories is tagged, and the consensus is Keep. Simply paste a bulleted list of such categories on the page. Cydebot removes the CFD tag, with an edit summary Robot - Result of CFD discussion was Keep; removing CFD template(s).

    I have also used it for large numbers where there was no consensus, even though the edit summary is inaccurate in such cases. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

    A new section in CFD

    I started a proposal at village pump here for a new section in CFD called CFRc (Categories for recategorization) where users who like to change sub- or parent-categories, can ask the experienced community. I believe you will like to join the discussion and poll. CN1 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Proposal to slightly reorganize the project page

    This proposals aims at more clearly splitting the page in three sections, one part for CfD explanation (current section 2 and 3 combined), one for C1 explanation (current 4.1.1 and 5 combined) and a third separate part for listing speedy renaming/merging (remainder of current section 4). For each of the three we have a different procedure. Please post your comments on it. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

    Link to the proposal? Debresser (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Debresser: This thread is, I think, a followup to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Proposal: prolong period of postponing deletion of empty categories from 4 days to 14 days. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    I see. This was posted at two locations, here and at WP:CSD. I think the proper location is there, so I'll comment there. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

    Requesting help to create a nomination for a dozen or so similar categories

    I just sent off a bunch of RM to standardize the title names of main articles for judiciaries in Category:Judiciaries. There are still several subcategories that need renaming, but I don't want to do it one by one. What is the best (presumably script-assisted) way of doing this? The country subcategories should use the most popular "judiciary of foo" style. So we need to rename Category:Judicial system of Albania to Category:Judiciary of Albania, and so on. Judicial system is the most common name, but there are weirder ones such as Category:Judicial branch of Israel (rename to Category:Judiciary of Israel), and so on. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me, thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Piotrus: If you are not claiming this as a Speedy case, then I would start by tagging one, say Albania, with {{subst:cfr|Judiciary of Albania|Judiciaries}}. The second parameter is the section heading on the CFD discussion page, which will be the same for all of them. After saving that page, the template will show suggested text for you to copy onto today's CFD log page to start the discussion. State in the "reason" that the nomination is under construction, then save the page. Having started the discussion section that way, you can then copy the "Propose renaming" line, paste it several times, and edit it to match the current and proposed names of the other countries; finish entering your rationale and Save. Also, tag the other category pages, remembering to include the identical second parameter as before, |Judiciaries.
    However, in this case, there is a sufficiently dominant pattern within Category:Judiciaries to use the Speedy procedure instead, with rationale C2C.
    Some people use WP:TWINKLE to automate CFD nominations. I've never got round to trying it.
    Hope this helps, – Fayenatic London 18:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Fayenatic london: If I go the speedy route, would nominating one category with the above rationale/links suffice? I simply don't have time to manually tag 30-40 categories these days. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, no. The pages must be tagged, to draw attention to the discussion. – Fayenatic London 05:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    In which case I will repeat: where can I request help for doing so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    Try Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

    Widening C2E

    The present speedy criterion WP:C2E was approved following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_14#Author_requests_renaming. It currently reads:

    C2E. Author request.
    • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within 28 days of creating the category.
    • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

    I suggested 28 days to be cautious when introducing a new rule, but such caution was probably unnecessary. This time limit was just too tight for this recent proposal by AusLondonder. I suggest increasing it to 6 months, or a year. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    While people are looking over this, why would bot edits count? That seems silly to me. ~ RobTalk 22:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Perhaps six months would be a good time limit. I also think bot edits should not count. AusLondonder (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree about bot edits that changed the category page. However, bot edits that populated the category would most likely have been implementing a merger which had obtained consensus at CFD, so a further discussion would be appropriate. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

    OK, I'm changing it to:

    C2E. Author request.
    • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
    • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

    – Fayenatic London 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

    Judaism categories

    Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_34#Category:British_Masorti_rabbis for a good reason why nominating editors or general editors at Cfd, should notify WikiProjects, in this case WT:JUDAISM, about nominations that relate to a specific WikiProject, in this case WP:JUDAISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 February 2016‎

    @Debresser: ideally we should be able to rely on automated article alerts; projects should encourage participants to add their Alerts pages to their personal watchlists. However, in this case, even though the category was tagged with WP Judaism, the nomination did not appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism/Article_alerts (see e.g. [7]). Would you like to report this for technical follow-up? – Fayenatic London 21:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    That is probably a good idea. But apart from that, how does that page relate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, which is on my watchlist? Debresser (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    WP:DELSORT requires manual notification. The Alerts pages are supposed to provide an automatic service which in my view supersedes it, for the projects that are covered. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

    ANI discussion on User:Stefanomione

    Due to the fact that in closing CFDs I have lately come across multiple complaints about the editing patterns of User:Stefanomione, I have re-opened his case at the Administrator's Noticeboard. The link is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

    For the record, outcome was "indefinitely topic banned from participation at WP:CFD and from creating or changing categories." See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive924#User:Stefanomione_revisited. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

    NGOs operating in countries they are not based in

    When we agreed to abolish Non-Government organisations as a category (a decision I support) we exposed a problem - organised which operate in countries where they are not based. Mostly based in advanced Western countries and doing good in poorer countries. They are generally charities. I am contemplating setting up categories along the lines of Category:Charities operating in Ethiopia, but I am at a loss as to how to handle what you might call the business end. I don't really want to put this in Category:Organisations based in Ethiopia because the fact that these organisations are not based in the recipient country is both significant and defining. So any bright ideas would be helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Please see Talk:Prostitution#Sin for a discussion as to whether the article should be in Category:Sin. BMK (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

    Two naming conventions, no apparent rationale

    Category:People of Bissau-Guinean descent exists, but the official name of the country is Guinea-Bissau, and in the cat is Guinea-Bissauan_Americans. There are several cats that use "Bissau-Guinea" order, but the term itself is a redir. Should we batch rename the B-G cats to G-B cats, or is there something else going on that's unclear on the surface? MSJapan (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

    If you check "What links here" on the category, it leads you to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_23#Category:Guinea-Bissauan_people, which in turn refers to a Requested Move discussion at Talk:List of Bissau-Guineans. Please rename any further G-B pages about people to "Bissau-Guinean", or non-people pages to "Guinea-Bissau" or "of Guinea-Bissau". There are currently no more at Special:PrefixIndex/Guinea-Bissauan. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

    Better description of topic categories. Or not.

    On the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization there is currently a discussion about topic categories [here], where I left a draft but I am missing criticism.
    Do you think additional and/or more detailed information about topic categories is needed for inexperienced users? Is my comment about topic categories accurate? My text is split in two posts, one at the start and one at the end of the discussion. I ask because my next step would be an invitation to you for discussing a policy update at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). CN1 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

    What can I do to help?

    From what I've heard/seen, CFD is badly in need of more closers. I've been active as a non-admin closer at WP:TFD for quite some time, but that's an "easy" area for a non-admin to contribute because orphaning templates doesn't require the bit. An RfC also concluded that non-admins can close TfDs as "delete" and CSD tag templates after orphaning, which certainly doesn't hurt. I'd be happy to work on the backlog at CFD, but what exactly can I do to help? The admin instructions seem to indicate a non-admin can do just about anything so long as an admin has agreed to help/mentor them, based on the language of "please do not close discussions that require any of the above 3 actions unless you are prepared to implement them manually, or an admin has agreed to help you," as well as "To request deletion of a category as a non-admin, tag the page with ...". Is this accurate? Where should I jump in as a non-admin (or should I, for that matter)? ~ RobTalk 20:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

    Hi Rob, thanks for your interest! Yes, the admin instructions are up to date. WP:CFDAC lists the backlog. The more recent days listed at the top may include a higher proportion of relatively easy cases on which to get started. However, those at the bottom are most in need of a newcomer's attention – I for one can't close them, as I participated; some of these are quite involved, and may call for a bit of experience with CFD policy and precedents, but others are simple enough. As a non-admin, you can implement anything that needs to be closed as "keep" or "no consensus". You could also do a small "merge" or "rename" manually, but for anything with larger contents feel free to ping me to list it for processing by a bot.
    Also, WP:CFDWM lists a few discussions that have been closed but need follow-up action to implement them, which anyone can help with.
    Feel free to ask more questions here, or on my talk page if you want to go into detail. In case I don't respond quickly when you need help, User:Good Olfactory is another admin who is very active at CFD. Marcocapelle has been doing a lot of non-admin CFD closures, and may also be willing to advise. I think I've seen him use the {{db-xfd}} template that you asked about. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    Rob, nice that you're responding! Two important things to share:
    1. You can find a lot of reading stuff to prepare in Category:Wikipedia categorization, most important are articles Wikipedia:Categorization (especially relevant for renaming proposals in CfD) and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially relevant for merge and delete proposals in CfD). Experienced editors in CfD discussions will often directly refer to the overcategorization guidelines in the latter article (like "delete per WP:NONDEF"), but not all contributors are experienced.
    2. Quite often it happens that a proposal is presented as a delete proposal, while a merge is actually intended or the preferable option, always be prepared for that.
    Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Just a quick note that this is still on my radar and I plan to get to working at the backlog very soon. Just need to finish up some content creation stuff I've been working on and find an hour or two to get more familiar with categorization policies/guidelines. ~ RobTalk 18:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm diving in. Quick question about soft redirects. The instructions say to leave them if the redirect would be "useful". Am I correct in assuming these should be left in the majority of cases? Obvious exceptions would be renames resulting from typos, etc., but something like this would usually result in a soft redirect, correct? ~ RobTalk 14:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your work so far! Hadn't realised that as a template editor you would be able to edit WP:CFDW, but that's fine. As for redirects: I leave them at the moment if I think that a well-meaning editor might add that category name to a page. However, if User:Cyde changes Cydebot's behaviour to delete them by default, I will probably only undelete a smaller proportion than I leave at the moment. ASCII redirects to diacritics are certainly worth having. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    The protection level on the working page was changed a week or so ago. To be honest, it's a bit sketchy. It effectively gives me the ability to delete categories, which isn't so desirable for a non-admin to have. At the same time, I haven't made a point of questioning it because my use of it has been a net positive for the encyclopedia so far (I hope, anyway!). I can say with near certainty that I'm the only currently active template editor who even knows that WP:CFD/W exists, so I'm not too worried about other editors with the user right misusing it. I wouldn't object to anyone raising the protection level back to full, though, because it's quite out-of-process for a non-admin to have the ability to list something for automatic deletion. Either way, I'm seriously considering whether a run at WP:RFA would be worthwhile in the near future given need for the tools at TfD and CfD. I'm hesitant to open myself up to that shit show, but it's starting to feel more worth it. ~ RobTalk 06:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    Nothing on that page is permanent, or fixed in stone. The nice thing about that page is there is an edit history, so if you were to suddenly go off the deep end, as it were, it wouldn't be a nice to see, but it all could potentially be restored.
    Oh and no fair jumping the gun, I've been going through your edits and was going to ask FL and GO what they thought about nominating you for admin. I'm merely a Wikipedian, so my endorsement means little, but I've known those two a long time here, and they're both pretty prolific editors, and usually fairly level-headed : ) - So I value their assessment : ) _ jc37 10:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    I would whole-heartedly support User:BU Rob13 in a RFA. His CFD closes I have seen so far have been, without question, of the highest quality. He's shown some insight and wisdom as if he's been at this a long time. It's been great to have you working in this area, Rob! I'd be happy to co-nominate with someone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

    A Bad System

    I've said this elsewhere, I have to say it here. The current system for Categories for Discussion (formerly and better named as Categories for Deletion) is seriously flawed. This back region of wikipedia is toured only by a microscopic few of the active wikipedia editors, much less the public viewership. If you give any value to categorization as a helpful tool for our users, then these categories should be treated as such and use such a standard in the discussions. The problem comes from the limited knowledge from the limited pool of participants. In short we are not providing notification to the editors who have added these categories to articles, we are not putting a notification on the articles the removal of a category will affect. In the absence of the interested participants, you are conducting ALL of these discussions in an enclosed bubble. Paraphrasing the way I have bluntly reacted; there are thousands of categories, each potentially affecting hundreds of articles. I can't possibly watch all the categories on the off chance that someone will make a stupid nomination. So it keeps happening. Stupid nominations, categories deleted with only a few (thoughtless) comments, and poof a category is gone. Somebody gets their brownie points for a successful deletion and wikipedia users . . . remember them, the people we are supposed to be helping with this organizational tool . . . are left without the help we should; we were providing. Look, I'm all for deleting frivolous garbage, maybe that is the majority of your work. All I see are unpredictably random, useful categories excised and salted. I say you are stupid because in each case, if just one person has done a WP:BEFORE and acted upon it, certainly the tide would have changed. Somebody needs to open their eyes in this dark room. Sunlight is needed. You need to invite people who understand these subject INTO the discussion, not hide your discussion from them. That can be achieved by the two items I mentioned.

    • 1) Send a message to each editor who has added the category (under threat of the deletion discussion) to an article.
    • 2) Post a notification message on all articles contained in that category. Trackinfo (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Please show us some examples of CFD discussion that have led to, for example, "useful categories excised and salted". DexDor (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Category:Rainbow Codes Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Not sure how I am to see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_25#Category:Rainbow_Codes as supporting the view that not enough people discuss... - jc37 10:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Not my example but would somebody do a count on the number of individuals involved in these discussions? That one had less than a half dozen. Most I have seen get less than a half dozen. These removals damage dozens to hundreds of articles. Do you see anybody involved in the articles commenting to protect their interests? No. Because you don't notify them. This section is inhabited by a very tiny group of elite editors, who I could refer to as "the usual suspects." It has been that way historically with each shocking removal. I'm going to take one to review, the results of which will probably be tainted by my comments here. Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Many CFD discussions only get a handful of !votes, but there may well be other editors who have looked at the discussion, agree with the nominators argument, seen that there are already several support !votes, seen that any oppose !vote has little weight (e.g. a comment from the category creator that shows they haven't read/understood the nominator's rationale) and hence decide that there's little/no point in adding another support !vote. You are using strong wording ("damage to ... articles", "protect ... interests", "shocking removal"), but not providing any examples to back that up. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    First of all, I personally disagree that Cfd was better called "deletion", and that is because (up-)merging, renaming and purging are also valid proposals and results.
    The easy way to find out what categories are up for discussion is to regularly visit WP:CFD and click the day of choice. Each day has a table of contents at the top, and usually no more than around 10 nominations. That means it is easy enough to stay updated.
    It is indeed recommended to inform the creator and major contributors of categories that are being discussed of the discussion, and to my recollection there used to be such an instruction on the WP:CFD page, but I can't find it. That is definitely something to restore/add. In any case, creators and most serious contributors will have the page on their watchlist. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Note: I copied and adapted a subsection about notifying contributors from Afd.[8] Debresser (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    There already was a suggestion to notify interested parties, but kinda hidden at the bottom of WP:CFD#HOWTO step II, it's the last two bullets. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Right. How did I miss that. Well, do you think we should shorten either the old or the new section? Debresser (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Article-based notification is very hard to achieve. Unless you intend editors to go into every article in a category and dig through diffs to find the interested users (infeasible for all discussions not using the rationale of WP:SMALLCAT), direct notification of users isn't possible. Based on the graphical limitations of MediaWiki, notification in articles is not currently possible without using a bot to spam a notice in articles (highly undesirable; no way that would get approval). The obvious solution is the article alerts system, and it already exists! If all WikiProjects used article alerts and appropriately tagged their categories, notification would be simple, but I know of no WikiProject that makes any serious effort to tag all categories within their category trees. Nominators of categories often aren't familiar with the subject material of a category, so they can't easily choose which projects are best suited for notification. If the projects themselves tagged the categories they find important, this problem would go away. I see this as a problem of inadequate WikiProject tagging, not a secret cabal at CFD. Trackinfo, I've run several tasks related to automated WikiProject tagging (e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_13) and class assessment (e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_15) in the past. If you participate in projects that could benefit from automatic tagging or class assessment, please feel free to message me on my talk page and I'd be happy to help. Hopefully, this will adequately solve your notification problem. ~ RobTalk 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    The article based notification is decidedly easier. If a notice is posted on all transcluded articles, the list being easily available as the contents of the category. it should reach most caring editors who posted to the article. With an already existing pool, that would be an easy assignment for a BOT. It would be the superior option to direct notification because it notify't have to deal with opt out considerations or tracing through history. The side benefit would be notification of other people interested in (watching) any of those articles--people with knowledge about the subject in question. Trackinfo (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Trackinfo: What transcluded articles? These are categories: nothing is transcluded except for the templates that are displayed on the category page. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes these are categories. So the mention of the category is included in the article and it causes the article to be part of the category. That is how transclusion works. Simply put: Include the notification (that the category is about to be deleted) on all articles in the category. Trackinfo (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    The category name appears at the bottom of the page because a link was created by the MediaWiki software and placed in that box. We cannot add any information from the category page to that link. It's not transclusion: transclusion is where the content of one page is made to appear on another page. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps my wiki semantics are not perfect. Trackinfo (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    @BU Rob13: Not all WikiProjects use article alerts, and not all WikiProjects bother to tag pages outside article talk space. Sending in a bot to perform a WikiProject tagging run will probably bring the situation up to date, but it requires an explicit request (these runs are one-offs, not regular tasks); and since a number of cats put up for CfD are recent creations, it's not likely that a WikiProject tagging run has occurred in the meantime. A WikiProject tagging run may also miss those cats that are uncategorised, or improperly categorised - such as cats that are placed inside themselves (see this fix). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Very true, but I think Trackinfo's concern that CfD is swooping in and deleting long-existing and essential categories excludes the categories you have in mind. I agree with you that CfD mostly deals with categories that are not long-existing. And if a WikiProject doesn't use article alerts, that's really on them; they can hardly complain they weren't "alerted" if there is a simple and easy-to-setup system to be alerted. ~ RobTalk 12:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think your consideration of wikiprojsects is far too limiting. Of experienced wikipedia editors, how many join wikiprojsects and monitor the,. That is a small subset of a small subset of a small subset of editors. Then there is the selection of the proper wikiproject on the part of the editor. That could be too generic or too specific to randomly hit an active editor on the subject. Selecting that could be subjective as in, selecting the wrong wikiproject to notify could be with a design to get a favorable outcome while achieving a sham look of neutrality. Anything is better than no notification, but I think it is much better to carry the notification directly to the articles affected. Trackinfo (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    That would be a suggestion you'd have to make to the developers; there is no capability to automatically transclude notices based on categories. Even then, though, it wouldn't show up as a watchlist change. ~ RobTalk 19:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Debresser: I think that your new section can be kept, but add to it the two notification template examples that are mentioned in step II, plus any others that are related but not hitherto mentioned (I think that{{subst:Cfdnotice}} is the only one). The last two bullets in step II can then be condensed, by removal of those nomination templates, but adding a link to your new section. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wile it certainly would be preferable to place a notice in the watch list "Category:X" attached to articles A, B, C and D (on your watch list) has been nominated for deletion. See the discussion" etc etc. The simple edit of a notice of that fact will suffice for the majority of articles. On high traffic articles, it will get missed, buried by subsequent edits. At least that notice is equivalent to the notice I normally get to discover a category has been deleted. And the critical point is the notice happens before the deletion, when something can be done about it. Trackinfo (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    I suspect that for many/most editors the adding/removal of category tags is not much more than a source of watchlist noise (much as interwiki links used to be) - I've seen cases where a totally inappropriate category tag was added to an article (e.g. an article about an African tribe being placed in a category for New Zealand plants) without being reverted by those watching the article. If you want to monitor a category to be alerted if it is taken to CFD then watchlist that category. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    My point has been, there are thousands of categories attached to the already thousands of articles I watch. Most just look like logical associations to the articles, unless something is out of line, I don't pay attention to categories. There is no reason to watch thousands of categories on the off chance that someone do something stupid. 99% of the time I don't even look at the contents of the category where I would have to go to watch it. And there is no reason to. The problem is that stupid happens here. Under our current system, one person can nominate stupid and it only takes a few uninformed "me too" votes to complete the deal and stupid is actually done. How could I or anyone else possibly predict when and where stupid will pop up? "Living people?" "1967 births?" Where do you draw the line? Stupid won't be nearly as easy to happen if there were some daylight here. If there is an edit to post the notice onto the article, that is an opportunity for anybody watching the affected article to notice. For people who watch a given subject, they will get multiple opportunities to see what is happening. And we could presume people watching articles in a category will be informed about the subject. So when stupid is proposed, they will have a much better chance to notice and then to bring informed discussion. That is far superior to guessing (or maliciously mis-selecting) a wikiproject to notify. Some wikiprojsects are active, most are ineffective attempts at collecting people interested in a common subject, but with nobody actively participating, they are useless. Trackinfo (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Let me try to phrase that better. The process of wikipedia decisions comes from consensus. That process can be swayed. The smaller the sample of opinions, the less input from editors, the greater the chance of a distorted consensus. Until we find a solution, the activities of this discussion process is not directly visible from mainspace, there is no notification of a nomination here that will be seen by a mainspace user. Those users and watchers of affected articles are particularly more likely to be knowledgeable about a subject being questioned here. So by removing them from the sample, you keep the discussion small and it is statistically far less likely to have experts in the subject participating in a discussion here. It is obvious we have far smaller discussions here. Trackinfo (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    The above comment is verging on WP:TLDR. If you want stuff like "stupid happens here" and "maliciously mis-selecting a wikiproject" to be taken seriously you need to provide examples. Re notifying mainspace users (i.e. readers?): changes to articles include changes to article text, adding new category tags and removing/renaming existing category tags. Why should (only) the latter require some new notification system? DexDor (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Trackinfo: Saying that "stupid" things happen as a result of process is not terribly enlightening, because "stupid" is entirely subjective. What is stupid to one editor may actually be a desirable outcome to another user. You followed up that comment with "let me try to phrase that better", so maybe you've already realized this. As to the merits: generally, I like to encourage users to take personal responsibility for watching the content that they care about, rather than placing more burdens on other editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

    It was renamed to Discussion literally a decade ago under the grand realignment that also renamed WP:AFD, WP:TFD, etc. It's water under the bridge at this point. You'd have to have a strong reason to remove the parallelism in naming with those other processes, and I'm just not seeing it. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

    Protection on CFD/W

    Just a note that the protection level of WP:CFD/W is being discussed here. ~ RobTalk 02:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

    What a drag

    What a drag this process is. Not a single person wiki-world-wide that can make theis CfD-process into a readable thing? For example: once I know I will propose a merge, why must I read all other options, again and again in I, II, and III? -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

    I have made 100 000+ edits in Wikipedia, but this CfD process kills me. What an amateuristic approach. -DePiep (talk)
    It's true, there's not a single person here who can do it. We are all dumbasses. I have diffs to back this up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    re I have diffs to back this up. What do you say? -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Apologies, I was just being silly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    You could try nominating things in the same way that most editors do — Twinkle. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    At least, can someone merge my four proposals? Talk is replicating by now already. Sigh. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    When nominating cats, you really do need to put something more convincing than "NEED REASON". That's a surefire way to get a WP:SNOW close as "keep". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I read it simply as, "Fuck the rest of you, for I have made 100 000+ edits in Wikipedia." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, you. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    My point is, that the CfD 'manual' is too long and too complicated even for an experienced editor. It is not just I-II-II, it has diversion-points for 'delete-merge- ...' and also for single/multiple proposals. And so on. A good manual should not require "use twinkle". -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Number of templates (bolded) I'm supposed to check, per step:
    I: 0
    II : 17
    III: 7
    -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've made some small simplifications to the process (note: you have to watchlist this to be alerted to changes). A rewrite might come up with something better, but (especially if you insist on not using Twinkle) it'll inevitably have quite a few steps. DexDor (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

    I do love the complaint of an "amateuristic approach" from an editor who provides a rationale of "NEED REASON". Delicious.

    Anyway, if DePiep thinks the manual is rubbish, then I got some good news: feel free to write a better one!

    You could hardly do worse than all those amateurs. Here's some tools ✀✁✂✄ which you can use to chop up the amateuristic stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

    Charities vs. non-profits

    User:Rathfelder needs some guidance. He or she is de-populating Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and replacing it with various "charity" categories. Under the U.S. tax code, most charities are 501(c)(3) organzations, but not all 501(c)(3) orgabizations are charities.

    Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

    The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.[9]

    Rathfelder has had this pointed out to them a couple of times, but continues making these changes. This may well be different outside of the US, but in the United States not every not-for-profit organization is a charity. The vast majority of non-commercial theaters in the U.S., for instance, are 501(c)(3)s. They are not charities, but they do have not-for-profit tax-exempt status because of their educational or literary purpose.

    Would someone please help Rathfelder understand the difference in the United States between a charity and other not-for=-profits? Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

    • Nobody has produced any definition of what constitutes a charity in US law other than section 501. Can anyone show me one? Section 501 prescribes how organisations are treated for tax purposes. The list quoted is not a list of alternatives, it's illustrative of what constitutes a charity in US law. Though clearly the word charity is used much less frequently in the US than elsewhere, Wikipedia categories need to be reasonably comprehensible for everyone. According to " Governing Nonprofit Organizations, Marion R. Fremont-Smith, Harvard University Press, 2004" as quoted in Charitable organization section 501 is the definition of a charity in US law. I am happy to accept that some organisations given section 501 exemption would not meet everyone's idea of what a charity ought to be (or indeed what would count as a charity in other jurisdictions), but if we are to make a distinction it needs to be based on some objective criteria. I don't see in what sense non-commercial theaters are not to be regarded as charities, for example, if they are eligible for tax-exempt charitable donations. To say that an organisation is not for profit is not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    I am proceeding on the basis you suggest: that most charities are 501(c)(3) organzations, but not all 501(c)(3) orgabizations are charities. I am waiting for someone to tell me how the two are to be distinguished.Rathfelder (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • As there appears to be no support for the propositions advanced by BMK, and no guidance has been produced explaining how charities in the USA are defined other than by Internal Revenue Code Section 501 I think it is agreed that all the section 501 organisations are charities.Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Your conclusion is false. I have presented straight0forward evidence that a 501(c)(3) organization can be a charitable organization, or it can serve some other function. You have presented no evidence whatsoever. Please do not continue your editing in this matter until you have shown that every American not-for-profit organization is a "charity". BMK (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What I want is a definition of a charity in the USA. I am quite prepared to consider the possibility that some 501(c)(3) organizations are not charities, but it appears that they are all effectively subsidised by the US government because they pass a test. In other jurisdictions this kind of test distinguishes charities from other organisations. If there is some other test in the USA which determines whether they are charities, what is it? The category relates to the article Charitable organization. That says very clearly that in the USA "The benefits of 501(c)(3) status include exemption from federal income tax as well as eligibility to receive tax deductible charitable contributions. " and goes on to say "The IRS, except in rare circumstances, refers to all organizations qualifying for exemption under 501(c)(3) as charities."Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Part of the problem is that the definition changes depending on which agency you are talking to (IRS vs Dept. of State for example)... And which level of government (Federal vs State) you are talking about. The IRS may refer to a Not-for-Profit as a Charity (using its definitions)... Even when it isn't defined as a charity by another Federal agency... And the various State tax agencies may have yet another definition. Etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

    I'm posting a reminder that after renames, merges and deletions per CFD, backlinks need checking (i.e. "What links here" on the old name), to ensure that CFD does not result in redlinks or outdated links in templates, articles, other category pages or portals. In common with other deletion processes, this is mentioned in the admin instructions.

    The CFDAI page does not spell out who should do the above, in the case where an admin implements deletion after a non-admin close. We could say both should check; does anyone have a better idea, to save work?

    Meanwhile, pinging user:SSTflyer after non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20#Category:Mathematical_institutes_and_societies, and user:Graeme Bartlett after speedy deletion of the same per the {{db-xfd}} tag: thanks for your help with CfD, but please note this extra step at the end. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    Would a simple Twinkle unlink work? SSTflyer 14:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    Normally I would reject the G6 delete until all the uncategorisation occurred. However backlinks, especially in templates could be a problem, and also if automatically created. I suppose we can't assume that they would be identified in the discussion. The redlinks that remain now, should stay red. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    I need help, please?

    Project Equine is expanding, and we need a Category:Halls of fame in the United States|Horse. I get easily confused over the category order, so can someone please create this category or show me how? Thank you! Atsme📞📧 01:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

    @Atsme: I read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine/Archive_8#Categories but am still not clear exactly what you want. Is it Category:American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame inductees, which would hold articles on individual horses as listed in the page American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame? To go in Category:Halls of fame in the United States? via a new intermediate level category, perhaps Category:Equestrian halls of fame in the United States?
    I could start it for you, but first: is Project Equine sure that these categories would be WP:DEFINING for the horses? – Fayenatic London 21:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    Good question Fayenatic london. I am pinging Montanabw who can better explain exactly what we need. Thank you for looking into this - it is MUCH appreciated. Atsme📞📧 21:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    I can make this happen. Atsme, I create categories fairly often and rearrange them at times. Put up your request over at WPEQ talk and I'll do it. We may want to start with just Equestrian halls of fame, but I'll have to look at the HOF structure to be sure. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

    Move notification

    I am posting here to notify you of a requested move I made regarding a bunch of cfd templates. The discussion it at Template_talk:Cfd#Requested move 8 August 2016 Pppery (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

    Recruiting more closers

    My activity is going to ramp down through the summer and into the academic year. Grad school is time-consuming. While I'll still be around, I don't think my activity will be such that the backlog can be reliably kept down unless we recruit more closers. While I still have some time this summer, I've been making some effort to do some mentoring of other editors who have expressed interest in closing discussions. I think this would be especially helpful around CfD because most editors look at this area and balk. I'm still getting a sense of the "regulars" around here outside of those who close discussions already; are there any users in particular that it might be beneficial for me to reach out to? ~ Rob13Talk 03:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

    Moving this to the bottom and adding this note to draw attention to it. I'm currently doing a mentoring push again. I hope to be able to recruit a few more. Do feel free to comment on that page or any other pages within User:BU Rob13/Mentoring/..., and also please send potentially interested editors my way if you think they could benefit. My time remains scarce and I've become involved in new backlogs, so I'm hoping mentoring can allow me to magnify my efforts by bringing more editors on board. ~ Rob13Talk 18:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    How much time have you been spending keeping the backlog down? --Izno (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Izno: Admittedly less than I should be. Probably 5–6 hours per week between here and TfD, but I do TfD first usually. My RfA led to me wanting a bit of a reprieve from enwiki, so I've been working at the OTRS backlog when possible. ~ Rob13Talk 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

    Closure script

    Along with Rob's call above, are there any scripts to semi-automate the closure process? Like User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js instead of User:King of Hearts/closecfd.js (which only works when editing a single section?) Such a tool would help with the backlog, or at least make it easier for others to pitch in czar 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

    I can look at coding such a script, like I did for FFD and TFD, but I'm not sure how much can or should be done automatically by the script. What I'm thinking at the moment is:
    • Keep/other: Prompt for result/comment, close section as such using {{subst:cfd top}} & {{subst:cfd bottom}}, add {{old cfd}} to cat talk page(s), remove {{Cfd}} or other Cfd template from the category (or categories).
    • Quick-Keep: As above, but just uses "Keep" as the result.
    • Delete/other: Prompt for result/comment, prompt for which working page to add to (/Working, or /Working/Large, or /Working/Manual), prompt for which section of selected page to use, prompt for either merge target or comment (as appropriate, based on page/section selected). If the /Manual page was chosen, replace {{Cfd}} or other Cfd template with {{listify}} or {{Cfd manual}} (as appropriate, based on section selected).
    • Other close: For multiple category discussions which require different actions for different categories. Prompts for result/comment, closes section as such, but takes no further action.
    • Relist: Relist on current day's subpage, close and collapse old discussion.
    Pinging @Czar and BU Rob13: for comments - Evad37 [talk] 03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    CfDs are complicated enough that tagging talk pages, etc. automatically with just one click is going to be hard. However, something that automates just the closing of the discussion itself (i.e. cfd top/cfd bottom) would be helpful. I'm unaware of any script that even does that (although it's possible one exists I haven't seen). ~ Rob13Talk 03:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    Just closing the discussions would be simpler to code... maybe the extra options would be more suitable if its just a single-category nomination? or maybe just for closing as "keep"/"no consensus"? - Evad37 [talk] 05:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    @BU Rob13:  Done as a basic script that just closes sections after prompting for a result/comment; and has an option to hide/show closed discussions. See User:Evad37/CFDcloser - Evad37 [talk] 03:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

    Evad37 As an aside, if you have time, could you look at making a simple modification to the TfD script to make it insert "soft delete. WP:REFUND applies." if you type "soft delete" into the prompt box? I'm tired of typing that bit out. It's the smallest least-important thing on the wiki, but it would save time/effort on my part. If you have time, thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

    @BU Rob13:  Done. User:Evad37/TFDcloser will now automatically expand "soft delete" into "soft delete. WP:REFUND applies." - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

    Requested move 25 August 2016

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    The result of the move request was: Speedy closed - Current policy has been explained to the nominator by all commenters. Also note that the pages in question more concern implementation following a discussion of community consensus, than merely closing a particular discussion. If some other admin thinks it's worth re-opening this RM proposal, please feel free to revert this speedy close. I left the discussion out of the "closed" section to allow for further discussion if wanted, but it's fairly clear that this particular group nom will not succeed due to current policy/process. - jc37 13:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

    – The name Administrator instructions is incorrect as non-admins can close deletion discussions. Pppery (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    Discussion

    Another mass rename proposal in maintenance area from this editor without much to say for it. This time he even didn't explain his reasons himself. Propose to speedily close this. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Debresser: How am I not explaining my reasons? The name Administrator instructions is incorrect as non-admins can close deletion discussions. Pppery (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, so that was the explanation. Did you notice that even though non-admins can close discussions, they can not delete category pages? I think that goes a long way to explain the present titles. As a matter of fact, I don't know how it is today, but in my day most non-admins saw this as a reason to refrain from closing discussions at Cfd, although it did happen once in a while. Still, and however that may be, the instructions are most pertinent to admins, who can actually delete categories. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Pppery, per WP:NACD, (most) XfD venues do not welcome non-admins closing discussions as "delete". (though TfD does permits them. There was a recent RfC on RfD whose closure was disputed, and I never checked the result of that) If these instruction pages are moved, it should be made more clear on relevant pages that non-admins cannot close discussions as "delete" per WP:NACD. And FYI, a page like Wikipedia:Move review/Administrator instructions is more likely to gain consensus for a move than the ones you just nominated here. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd like to see this moved. The current instructions, which have been in place for two years and have worked in practice for many more, allow non-admin closures as "delete" so long as the non-admin is willing to handle the orphaning and tag as WP:G6 or they have an admin willing to list their closures at WP:CFD/W. I'm an admin and I'm willing to do that for any non-admin with some clue, so functionally, any competent non-admin is able to close discussions with any outcome at CfD. ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

    Db-c1: Four days or seven days?

    Just a minor inconsistency. This page says that a category should be empty for "four days" in order for {{db-c1}} (called {{db-catempty}} here) to be used. WP:C1 says "seven days". Can these be made consistent? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    It used to be four, and then it was standardized to seven. Thanks for pointing out we missed this. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    @Jonesey95: WP:CSD was altered four months ago, with this edit, the discussion is here, and {{db-c1}} was altered in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Bot clerking

    It has been requested at Wikipedia:Bot requests#CFD daily subpages that a bot start performing clerking tasks for CFD. AnomieBOT will be beginning a trial of code to do this. The specific tasks being done are similar to those done at TFD:

    The most notable omission compared to the TFD and FFD clerking is that the bot cannot currently automatically close CFD discussions when the categories being discussed are deleted.

    If you notice any issues, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 75. If the bot needs to be stopped for some reason, edit User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/CFDClerk. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 13:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

    Edit notice

    The instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO said Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), but there was no edit notice. I have created a group edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which now appears for every edit to a CFD log page. What do editors think of this?

    Of course, an alternative way to achieve consistency would be to change the instructions at HOWTO, removing the promise that instructions will be available during edit. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not keen on having to scroll past such a (large) edit notice for every edit (or even show preview) to any CFD discussion page. And, of course, it's much better to use Twinkle. DexDor (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Any other views? I have just suppressed it on the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

    It's way too bulky, and has been annoying me for week, so as a first step I have just collapsed it[10] as a first step.

    I think it is fundamentally misconceived, and would prefer it to be deleted, or at least amended to a much shorter form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    Hmm. Collapsing it messed up the display, so I reverted the collapsing, and then blanked the page.

    That editnotice was about how to create a CfD discussion. However, most edits at CFD are not about creating a discussion; they are to comment in an existing discussion. So for most edits to a CFD log page, a huge bulky edit notice is a disruptive intrusion.

    I would be happy with a very short edit notice (1 or 2 lines only) which linked to the basic instructions, rather than reproducing them in full. Pinging Fayenatic london who created the editnotice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    Thinking about this a little further. Firstly, I should have thanked Fayenatic london for a good faith attempt to solve the problem of WP:CFD#HOWTO making a promise which was not fulfilled. I don't think that the first attempt resolved it, but there was a problem to be fixed.

    So I suggest that:

    1. WP:CFD#HOWTO should be split out to a standalone page, for clarity
    2. WP:CFD#HOWTO should be reworded to a) put use of TWINKLE as the main way of doing nominations b) stop referring to instructions "visible during edit"
    3. Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion should be brief, in the same spirit as Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

    Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    @BrownHairedGirl: Re your comment "collapsing it messed up the display" - in this edit you put the {{collapse bottom}} immediately after a pair of closing braces. The template must be at the start of a line, otherwise it's not recognised as a table close but as the literal characters |}, hence the odd effects that you saw. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, Redrose64. I hadn't spotted that cause of the glitch, and should have investigated.
    As above, my preference now is for a much shorter editnotice, uncollpased. But obviously if you prefer to fix my broken attempt at collapsing it, pending whatever this discussion concludes, feel free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    I have reinstated the collapsed notice, and moved two lines outside the collapse box, one of which is a temporary line giving a link to this discussion, in order to attract more views. The collapse is certainly an improvement. I should have stated that I created the trial edit notice in response to the confusion expressed by Eric at CFD 2016 May 6. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hello, FL and all, thanks for taking a look at this. Eric talk 03:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, Fayenatic london. That is much better than the huge box which dominated the edit screen.
    I would still prefer a link to a standalone set of instructions, but this a good first step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I like the present format. My only comment is that it would be useful if a link could be provided to the category page, in case one wants to look at it again in the middle of writing a CFD comment. At present one needs to preview to get at a link. The AFD header provides such a link. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @Peterkingiron:: Oh, fancy that. I was getting fed up of it myself, as it makes the page take even longer to load and stop jumping about, especially when using a tablet. So, I came here hoping for a resounding lack of support, in which case I was going to reduce it to a couple of lines, with no collapsed section. You make a nice suggestion about linking to the category, but AfD has the advantage that the article name can be retrieved from the AfD page name, e.g. WP:AfD/Article_name, whereas CfD pages are just logs named according to the date. In other words, good idea, but sorry, we can't do it. Tell me, do you actually refer to the collapsed section? I never do, because I always start with putting a template on the category page, and then copy from there to CFD. Unless anybody positively wants to keep the collapsed section, I propose to remove it and just link to WP:CFD#HOWTO. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Fayenatic London: -- I do not refer to the collapsed section, because I know where to look for instructions on starting a CFD. However, many users will not be so experienced, so that the instructions are potentially useful. Possibly one line in a header (somewhere) linking to those instructions would be sufficient. The instruction about including a colon when referring to categories is important and needs to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I have no issues with the long editnotice, other than I don't think it's helpful to collapse-box all of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    Having an editnotice is helpful. The bulkiness of that particular implementation is easily resolved by using {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. A balance can be achieved between brevity and utility: Explain the basics visibly, provide additional details in a collapse box. Moving on, I would object to describing the use of a add-on like Twinkle as the "main" way of doing nominations. It's not; it's just the favored way of some people, including many who do a lot of nominations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

    Bad undiscussed moves

    Recently, User:Mervat Salman redirected/moved three categories from "Arabic" to "Arabian", though all cover the whole Arab world, saying "Arabic is only used for language". I can't just revert, as there is now a redirect. Also User:Babymissfortune has, in good faith, manually moved all the articles ahead of RussBot. Do we need full Cfds to reverse these undiscussed & clearly wrong changes? It's Category:Arabic music (moved there by 2011 CFD), Category:Arabic musical instruments and Category:Arabic architecture. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

    They moved the pages. Why can you not move them back? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Can't move over a redirect. Needs an admin I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    You can, provided that (i) the redir has only one edit in its history, i.e. its creation by moving the page; (ii) the page that is redirected to is the same as the one that you're moving. See WP:MOVE#Undoing a move. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    No, I can't. I've just tried again, and it won't let me. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Johnbod: Which page did you try it on, which method of moving did you use, what messages were shown? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    I think all of them now. I just get the usual: "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." I find with articles it sometimes lets me do this, but usually not, seemingly at random. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    I have to say, though I'm not an expert, I also find "Arabic" odd as a descriptor of a culture rather than a language. If not "Arabian", then maybe "Arab"? --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    These are indeed the choices. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Hello @Redrose64:, @Trovatore:, @Johnbod:, Can you please check this? http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/arab.html ... these categories were wrong, Arabic is only used for the language. Mervat Salman (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    That's one view. As I've pointed out to you, what is certainly true is that "Arabian" is only used for things relating to Arabia, that is to say the Arabian peninsula. Certainly not Egypt, Syria etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    One of the definitions in the OED of "Arabian" is "Of, from, or relating to Arabia or (more widely) the Arabic-speaking world." So it can be used to refer to things of the "Arab world". But I agree that today it is typically is used in the narrower sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    So, I repeat, I'm not an expert — but "Arab" sounds like the winner to me. Is there any reason these categories and articles should use "Arabic" in preference to "Arab"? --Trovatore (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    "Arabic" is in fact extremely common, in the best sort of publications, whatever the man from OUP says. Merriam-Webster specifically say "Arabic architecture, and I think they're right. No one says "Arab numerals"! Also see Arabic music on gbooks, and Arabic architecture (169K). Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    The numerals are a special case, I think (let's talk quietly so we don't wake up the people who want to call them Hindu–Arabic numerals), and in any case are closely related to language. I would take "Arabic music" to mean music in Arabic, whether or not it was part of Arab culture.
    In any case, my question is not so much whether the "Arabic" terms are used, but whether there is any reason to prefer them. There is clearly a reason to prefer "Arab", because it does not evoke the language so strongly. What is the countervailing reason to prefer "Arabic"? --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    I would go with "Arab" as well. The fact that a dictionary has noted the occasional use of "Arabian" to refer to "all things Arab" rather than just things associated with the Arabian peninsula is inconsequential; the meaning associated with the Arabian peninsula is the primary meaning and using it more broadly will be confusing to most readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I continue to recommend an old considered opinion: Category creation (which would include renaming) should be a special permission not automatically available to any editor. The permission would require a request, and experience at CfD should be a prerequisite.
    Categories are not content, they have unexpected limitations and complications, and there exist sophisticated tools for doing things properly. Most of the CfD work seems to involve cleaning up ill-considered category creations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    How true. We might at least impose a low limit per week or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    I agree entirely about category creation (and renaming/moving). A licence should be required and it should be revocable. Oculi (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    Also agreed. We are long past the point where WP's coverage was so spotty that we actually needed every random user to be able to create categories, and we've also gotten the point where the category system is highly structured and no longer so willy-nilly. The ability of noobs to create and move category pages has long been a nuisance instead of a benefit in most cases, and in the rare even someone without the requisite experience is convinced that a new category is needed then can request its creation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Then perhaps somebody should draft an Rfc to be presented to the developers after its conclusion. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

    Backlog: Discussions awaiting closure

    Is it typical to have a backlog of dormant discussions that are one to two months old? My CfD is a month old and not controversial, and there have been no further comments for 22 days. None of the other CfDs started the same day, most of which are not complex, have been closed either. There is another than is six months old that has not been closed, though I see there seems to be no consensus on that one. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for the context. Last I wanted was to complain as a first timer when what I was observing was typical. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

    Fate of CFDS

    Oh the weather outside is frightful / but the fire is so delightful / and since we've no place to go... BencherliteTalk 11:28, 29 December 2016 (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.

    Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    We do not need a overly-specific split of WP:RM hosted on an XFD subpage. Merge into either WP:RM or WP:CFD per precedent (SFD, UCFD, PUF). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

    Could someone move this to WT:CFD, WP:VPP, or WP:VPR? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

    I moved this from MFD as the CFD talk page seems more appropriate. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2016 (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.

    Mea culpa - Category move revert needed

    I moved Category:American monster movies to Category:American monster films without fully thinking it through. I've cleaned up as many of the associated edits as I can, but I can't just move the underlying category back. Can I get some assistance please? Sorry for the mess. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks!!! DonIago (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    New Adminbot proposal - History Merge cleanup of another bot

    Hello All, A BRFA has been opened for task approval for an adminbot to perform history merges related to cut-and-paste category renames performed by another bot. Please see the request here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2. Questions and comments for the operator are welcome. — xaosflux Talk 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_16&oldid=1090629909"