Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Feel free to participate in the discussion at Template talk:Cfd all#Should the tags for nominating categories to be renamed be purple in stead of pink?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that I missed a chance to comment on a group of speedies. What is the correct form of disambiguation for cemeteries? Is it comma or parentheses? See Category:Burials in Chicago, Illinois for an example of differences. While my concern is with the categories, this could roll over into article names needing changing. My feeling is that parentheses are preferred. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just match however the article about the cemetery is formatted (if any)? But like you, I think parentheses are the default disambiguator for article names of this type. On a related point, why do we have burial categories for cemeteries that do not have a WP article? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should match the article name when that is correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I made those speedies and while I didn't notice about the disambiguation I did notice that there were "Burials at" articles with cemeteries that don't have pages. I could see them being proposed for deletion like album cats for redlink record companies etc. As to disambiguation I think the parentheses are preferred. There was definitely one move that now I look was to a title that doesn't match the article. Fairmount Cemetery (Newark, New Jersey) and now Category:Burials at Fairmount Cemetery, Newark. Tassedethe (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem to nominate that one again, I suppose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a rename discussion at Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move - Victoria (state). In case the move is performed, I understand that all categories that need a change would be tagged manually and listed via CFD/speedy. What I don't know: The rename itself, i.e. edit articles to change the categories will be done by bots? Thanks a lot. TopoChecker (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the category is changed at CfD, then our bot would change the categories in all affected articles. So the number of articles affected should not be an issue. The category renames should meet the speedy requirements following a discussion at WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification. TopoChecker (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the article for the State of Victoria is renamed from Victoria (Australia) to Victoria (state), as proposed at Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move - Victoria (state), then is it C2C to rename Category:Victoria (Australia) to Category:Victoria (state)? Or may it be C2B? TopoChecker (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would interpret that situation as a C2B. If all the categories that referred to Victoria used "Victoria (state)" except one used "Victoria (Australia)", then I would use C2C to change the one exception. I agree that there is some bleeding between the two criteria and it's not always super clear which one would apply. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't categories be routinely/rigorously de-populated (either via de-categorization [for deleted cats] or re-categorization [for renamed cats]) before the category is actually deleted? It's a bit irritating to run into an article with multiple redlinked cats, such as United States Senate special election in Washington, 1983 more than two years after the categories were deleted. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As the article was created nearly two years after the category was deleted... Tassedethe (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the page added it in the first edit. I'm not sure why, since Category:United States Senate elections in Washington (U.S. state) was already there. I went ahead and removed the deleted one, while I created Category:Washington (U.S. state) elections, 1983. — ξ^xplicit 05:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest cleaning up ===Procedure=== like how wp:tfd has been cleaned up.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the question, but even TfD has an elaborate procedure. I suggest separating different procedures: "Cfd", "Cfm", "Cfr", "Cfc", by adding a first step ("step zero") for choosing the right Cfx-path. -DePiep (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments about restricting mass category creation are being made at Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now with a specific proposal focussing on mass category creation. Rd232 ^talk 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anything be done to divide the page into smaller sections? Those of us with bandwidth problems cannot propose new categories (see Category talk:Sport venues in Bristol) or comment on other proposals. Thanks. --Mhockey (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Proposals of any sort should be handled in the daily discussion page, not the main CfD page, and as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 27 is far shorter than a good many articles, I don't think bandwidth may be the limitation you're running up against. That said, the main CfD page is currently burdened with an unusually long requests for speedy section, including challenged requests from weeks ago and a list of categories set up for some reason in a table rather than a list. The "Categories possibly emptied out of process" might also stand to be moved to a separate page.- choster (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed alot of categories nominated by TopoChecker (talk · contribs) in the disputed speedy section. Can they just be removed, since the user has become indef-blocked? 65.93.12.249 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do speedy renames to match the corresponding article fall under C2B or C2C? Perhaps we should create a new criterion for this. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Cfd nomination}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of the ongoing nomination for deletion of Template:Cfd nomination, I would like to again raise the issue of consolidating the level-2 CfD nomination templates (see the original discussion).

The template can be renamed to a more intuitive title to avoid possible confusion about its purpose (one suggested title was Template:Cfx2), and the process of switching over is easy enough, requiring:

1. Updating of the instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO; and
2. Conversion of the four level-2 nomination templates ({{Cfd2}}, {{Cfm2}}, {{Cfr2}} and {{Cfc2}}) into wrappers for the new one so that editors who continue to use the old templates (due to habit, preference or being unaware of the new template) will not encounter any problems.

Proposed revision to Step III

{{subst:Cfx2
 | category = <!-- omit the "Category:" namespace prefix -->
 | action   = <!-- "convert" (to article); "delete", "listify", "merge" or "rename" -->
 | target   = <!-- if applicable, the name of the target page to which the category is to be listified, merged or renamed -->
 | reason   = <!-- the reason for the action -->
}} ~~~~

Discussion

The revised instructions, as proposed above, are more condensed, and the overall effect is a reduction in length of almost 15%. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

CFD section name really needs to be an option to support multiple nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done - see test case. As is the case with the templates currently in use, the second and subsequent nominations must be added manually. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: {{Cfd nomination}} was deleted due to lack of use, with a provision to "userfy or revive if there is consensus to put it to use". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolve arguments about differences between guidelines. Add "ethnicity, gender," to BLP, matching all other guidelines.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To avoid repeating myself ad infinitum:

• All categorization is required to be both notable and relevant.
• Certain quibblers have noted that ethnicity and gender are not specifically listed in WP:BLP.
• WP:BLP is a "policy", while Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization of people (WP:COP), Wikipedia:Category names, WP:EGRS, and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially WP:OC#EGRS) are "guidelines".
• Certain quibblers argue that policy trumps guidelines for these special cases.
• Thus, (non-notable or irrelevant) ethnicity and gender might be allowed for living people, but removed for the dead, undead, or incorporeal.
• This is difficult to enforce or implement (and was certainly never the intent of the policy).

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question; and this information is relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
...
These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or {{infobox}} statements that are based on ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation.

Please visit the Talk section above to certify the slight wording change.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Raul654 (talk · contribs) has agreed to officiate! I'll encourage the rest of you folks to at least visit the main link and confirm the policy language update, as this often affects CfD. Heck, maybe a lot of the conflicts will evaporate? (Fat chance.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A reminder to all here, we're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days. We're seeing the usual obfuscation and poisoning the well, from some of the usual such editors. If closers here would like some closure, now is the time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been recent changes to {{Cfd-notify}} that seem to warrant some review. The template is watched by fewer than 30 people,[1] so I thought it prudent to mention this here. The change that concerns me involves wording,[2] and while I tend to agree with the reasoning expressed in the edit summary, I'm not sure that the current wording is adequate. I've already been criticised because I only notified an editor that his template was being discussed, not that I'd nominated it for deletion.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AussieLegend quotes from a mistaken edit, that was corrected within two minutes, to which AL replied 16 minutes later. Quoting rather an appropriate edit would have been a display of good faith. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is, you were confused by the wording of the template, which is why you had a go at me and started this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a point illustrated by the next edit (2 minutes later), to which you replied (16 minutes later). (If you update your edit, then you may freely delete this later distraction.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, what a byzantine collection of rules. Makes my head spin, and after looking all down the page I still don't see where or how to create a simple brand new category. Can someone kindly advise me on what to do here?

A couple days ago, I created a new article, Gulf Coast Lines, which as you can see by looking at the article comprised 15 or more railroads. Some of them are red links now, but I hope in future they will be filled in by me or other editors.

Category: Gulf Coast Lines seems called for here; which in turn should be a subcategory of Missouri Pacific Railroad (eventual owner after 1924) - and maybe also a subcat of Frisco Railroad (original owner before 1916). Little help, guys? Textorus (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see how you might have got confused by the documentation here, because "Categories for discussion" is about dealing with existing categories (deleting them and renaming them, that sort of thing). Creating and adding categories is explained at Help:Category (explaining how to do it) and Wikipedia:Categorization (explainng what sorts of categories should be created).

Very briefly: to create the category, you create the page Category:Gulf Coast Lines, which you can do by clicking on the red link, or by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gulf_Coast_Lines and clicking on the "Create" tab. Then you add articles to it by adding the text [[Category:Gulf Coast Lines]] at the bottom of each article that should be a member. - htonl (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, I'll give it a try. Textorus (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, crap. I created the category and applied it to three articles (Gulf Coast Lines, Beaumont, Sour Lake and Western Railway, and St. Louis, Brownsville and Mexico Railway) - but it comes out red-linked on all of them, and does not appear if I do a search on Category:Gulf Coast Lines. So I tried creating it a 2nd time, and the linked articles appear, but no category has been created: look. Any ideas what to do about this, guys? I will never try creating a category again. Textorus (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to do more than just click on the category redlink; you then need to enter categories for that category, and hopefully a description of some sort, and then save that as the category page just like you'd save text in any other page. With nothing saved, the category page doesn't exist even though there are articles categorized by it. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clue. I typed a sentence in, and that seemed to do the trick, the red links are gone now. But other railroad categories seem to be functioning quite well without an introductory sentence such as mine; and nowhere in the Category directions I was referred to above is this simple procedure simply described. Perhaps some kind soul may want to look into that for the benefit of future clueless editors like me. But I'm over it now, and not going there again. Textorus (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You still need to categorize your category; that's why other category pages exist without any other text. postdlf (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Which is why I will never attempt this again. Delete the category if it's not right, I'm beyond caring at this point. Textorus (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• It sounds like we need to include in the instructions, "Click on the 'Save page' button to complete creation of the category." Yet another proof of the dictum that if you think anything on WP is obvious, someone out there will prove that it is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Good. FYI I did click on everything that was "obvious." But what's obvious, and even fascinating, to an auto mechanic or chef or computer programmer is not so obvious to the rest of us. I'm here to write well-crafted, well-sourced articles about topics that engage my interest - not to waste hours and hours of time and millions of brain cells struggling with arcane, obscure procedures. Folks who enjoy that sort of thing, though, are welcome to it; not my cup of tea. Textorus (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that if one was trying to create a page on Wikipedia—article or category—the obvious last step would be to click on the "Save page" button. Since no editing can be done without learning that final step, I wouldn't really call this an "arcane" or "obscure" procedure. But again, this just proves the vitality of the dictum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

After this this CfD in 2006, Category:Three-player card games was deleted. (Officially it was merged into Category:Two-player card games, but that makes no sense.) As a result, there is now a silly gap in Category:Card games by number of players, which is an orthogonal subcategorisation scheme for those card game articles for which it makes sense. The category is needed for games such as skat or calabresella, for which 3 is not just one of many possible numbers of players but the only one with which the game works well. There are few good games of this type, and this is a defining feature for them.

I found no clear instructions on what to do in such a case, and also nothing relevant in the talk page archives of recent years. Should I start a new CfD on the deleted category, or should I go to WP:DRV? Hans Adler 11:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Just recreate it. Both the two-player and the four-player card game categories were created in 2007, after that CFD (which actually merged both into Category:Card games), and you're right about the silly gap. The fact that the structure has since remained in place for four years suggests consensus may have changed, and the consensus wasn't exactly overwhelming to begin with: only three people participated in the CFD. If someone still feels strongly about it, they can then list the whole structure at CFD. postdlf (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If a Wikiproject decides by consensus that there should be a mass renaming of categories, does the renaming proposal still have to be proposed at CfD, or is broad consensus at WP level sufficient for this. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

List it at CFD, notify the Wikiproject so its members can participate, and link to the prior discussion at CFD. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It turned out that the editor was a sock of a banned user. Therefore his edits are liable to be reverted on sight. Due to this, we should be free to sort this at WP level and not have to go via CFD. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, ouch, what a mess. 15-inch railway changed to 381mm railway? No thanks. I know you guys have handled the reversions, so thanks for that. If he had originally gone through CFD first he would've been shot down really quickly. The CFD regulars have a great understanding of the category system, what kinds of things make sense, and what don't. --Cyde Weys 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, when renaming categoruies, we always do it by copying the current category content and deleting the old one. This has the problem of losing the category history, a problem with only partial solutions right now. I have come up with a possible solution which would copy the whole history, rather than just the "current" version:

1. Use the import tool to make a copy of the full history in some other namespace, where there is no issue of name clashes. This new page will have the same name (i.e if you were to make a "copy" of Category:Foo in the Help: namespace, it would be at Help:Foo).
2. Move the imported page to the new title, in the same namespace(i.e for moving Cateogry:Foo to Category:Bar, move Help:Foo to Help:Bar).
3. Use the import tool to import the new page into the Category: namespace.
4. Speedy delete the temporary page created in the other namespace under CSD G6.

If this process is handled by a bot, such as Cydebot, it could be done relatively quickly and with no mistakes. Graham87 says this should be possible. It would preserve the category history at the move target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Importers#Importers and_ Transwiki: "Although Mediawiki software provides the ability to import articles directly from XML (which may come from any wiki site), this is disabled on en.wikipedia as well as most other Wikimedia projects." --Cyde Weys 13:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why can't categories be moved like any other page? McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that the only way to do this would be to allow imports from en.wikipedia to en.wikipedia, which sounds a bit daft ... but it's theoretically possible. Here's another way of achieving the same thing that has just occurred to me, which would be slightly more practical:

1. Import Category:Foo (the old category name) from en.wikipedia into another wiki, probably Meta, and import it into another namespace there (let's say MediaWiki talk, since it's rarely used).
2. Move MediaWiki talk:Foo on Meta to MediaWiki talk:Bar, ideally without a redirectwhere "Bar" is the new category name.
3. Import MediaWiki talk:Bar on Meta to Category:Bar on the English Wikipedia.

Or we could just bug the devs to implement a proper category move feature. See bug 5451 ... it seems that my idea was mentioned in the last comment of that bug by Nemo. Graham87 14:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while I appreciate that it might work, having to transwiki the category text to another wiki entirely, then back, all just to save the history on a category page (which nine times out of ten doesn't contain any creative content anyway), is not something I am ever going to implement. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there any requirement or other reason for attribution to be preserved in category renames? I don't see any benefit to it. As is mentioned there is almost never any actual content to attribute anyway. And is this really such an important issue that it need be listed on WP:CENT? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Category descriptions, where present, count as attributable comment as does anything on the talk page that is not wikiproject banners. Not often present but where it is it needs to be attributed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. This is my understanding of current process (not sure about the order): 1) old category is deleted 2) new category is created 3) articles in old category are edited so they become part of the new category. Why can't we 1) move old category to new category 2) edit articles in the same way? (Is there a MediaWiki limitation?)

Also, instead of re-importing why not have the bot get a copy of the old category's history (much like those image transfer bots copy over the original upload logs) and put that on the new category's talk page or something? That seems easier than importing. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category talk: pages can be moved, and a copy of the page history satisfies attribution, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors. See previous discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#Speedy category renaming violating the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (June 2010). Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A common reason for renaming a category is to match the corresponding article. For example, if Foo (in Category:Foo) was moved to Bar, then Category:Foo should be moved to Category:Bar. This is common if the disambiguation of a page is changed. Can we create a new criteria for this or add it to one of the existing criteria? I have suggested this before but it was archived before anyone replied. I went ahead and did it but the edit was reverted and I was told to discuss it first. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WT:CSD might be a better place to propose this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the speedy renaming criteria have nothing to do with deletion (unless the old category is deleted) and Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Speedy is a sub-page of this one. This seems as good a place as any but I'll leave a message on WT:CSD to notify people of this discussion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're suggesting that we add "A rename reinstating concordance of category and article naming following a consensual page move" to WP:CSD#C2? If so then I don't see a problem with that. It might fit with subcriteria B or C, but I think it would be better as a new CSD#C2D. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Looks fairly reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Conditional support. Renaming a category is a way larger hassle that renaming a page, even if it is carried out by a bot. As you know, page moves are sometimes reverted; heck, move wars may erupt, with move blocks and all :-) Therefore the phrasing of the criterion must kick in only if the page move was consensual. E,g,. at least 36 hours after page move, or if the move was after a reasonable poll, or it was listed as uncontroversial, etc. IMO just saying that it was consensual is not enough: some common sense rules must be listed, if not for a benefit of the moving admin (I am sure they are experienced enough), but for the rest of the wondering public. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points, speedy deletion criterion shouldn't leave things up to common sense if at all possible, so perhaps this will be better:

A rename reinstating concordance of category and article naming

This applies immediately following a page move with explicit consensus to also rename the category, or 2 days after any other page move. If there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, then this criterion does not apply.

I think two days should be more than enough time for any objections to be raised, but short enough so as not to unnecessarily hold up uncontroversial cases. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for this so I've added it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we want this to apply after any discussions ongoing at the time of the move have concluded? If so immediately or after a further 2 days, or should it not apply and have to be done by the standard process? Personally I think that 2 days after the end of the discussion is right, but I'm not certain enough to be bold about adding it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If the ongoing discussion is about the category then after that discussion has reached a conclusion, there is no need to wait. If the ongoing discussion is not about the category then it's irrelevant to the category renaming process. The current wording seems fine to me. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes or vice versa. (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).

This should not be a speedy request; as anybody who cares to read Talk:Mexican-American War will see (I don't recommend it, especially the archives), it is at least as controversial as Anglo-American differences, and there is also disagreement on what MOS says on the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that there is currently a moratorium on moving articles to/from a dash/hyphen. While it does not explicitly apply to categories, it would probably be wise not to make any hyphen/dash moves on categories while the ArbCom injunction is in place. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes for details. Jenks24 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Jenks24 and ArbCom's motion, this thread isn't actionable until at least July. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

While I have no problem with a category I created being nominated for deletion, I'm a little surprised that the nominator did not feel it necessary to inform me of their decision. Is this common procedure at CfD? Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 11:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is the norm to poorly advise of CfDs. The defense has been that extremely few respond, and some even complain of being spammed. I support having creators being notified by bot, unless opted out, for every CfD concerning the category they created. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that a couple of editors decided a few weeks ago to rename hundreds of categories belonging to many different WikiProjects... without telling any of the affected WikiProjects, the WP:WikiProject Council, or the WP:1.0 team that depends on these categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011_May_12#Foo-priority_bar_articles.

Some of these WikiProjects adopted the less common name because they were getting complaints about the more common "importance" name. Declaring a person to be "low-importance" is commonly seen as an insult, and other groups have talked about converting the templates to "priority" to prevent these complaints.

CFD already has a reputation for "secret" decisions, since it's an underwatched forum. I really think that you should make a bigger, more deliberate effort to notify affected groups. You might consider requiring every nomination to be accompanied by a diff proving that someone has announced the CFD on the talk page of the cat's main article or a relevant WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the WikiProject Coucil and 1.0 team would have probably been sufficient. In general, I agree with the above: there should be a greater onus on the nominator to notify. —WFC— 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please assist Right now, the page doesn't link to the several open discussions on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_16 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_15. Please fix this. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_16. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It does. Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On Category:Eponymous categories for populated places, User:Dbachmann changed the "related category" link into a redirect; I reverted on the basis that a redirect had never been discussed here at CFD, and he has since redone the edit. It seems to be related to what's going on at Category talk:Eponymous categories, but I don't really follow. I am correct, am I not, in thinking that redirecting a category should only happen after a CFD discussion, right? - htonl (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One would have thought so (at least, if it's in any way controversial, as these clearly are). The same user seems to have gone on something of a spree with these - I've tried to put things back more or less how they should be until some kind of decision can be reached.--Kotniski (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Category:Food companies of France more or less the same as Category:Food manufacturers of France? Debresser (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the moratorium on dashes/hyphens has ended, so I think it would safe to add a link to MOS:DASH back to the C2A section of CFD/S. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some kind soul has added the dash example back, so thanks to whoever did that. Jenks24 (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Magister Scienta Templates is according to the category page, a category of all templates created by a specific user. Is this allowed? Debresser (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. It doesn't really add any value to WP to group templates by initial editor. Most of these "personal use" categories have been deleted in the past when nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Bot_for_automatic_category_appending. I hope we have something to automate this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Musings_on_Silesian_people_and_categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have started doing some work in Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, but as I have learned more it is apparent I am going about it the wrong way. I need some advise on how to proceed. The category currently has 14 sub categories. There are actually 100 dioceses in the United States of which only 13 are listed as sub categories. The organization get rather confusing when there is a Category:Episcopal bishops of California so one might think that the Bishop of Los Angeles would belong in that category, but that would be very wrong. The dioceses of California only covers the greater San Francisco area. And a bishop of Los Angeles would never be consided to be a "Episcopal bishop of California". Other dioceses in state of California include

• Los Angeles
• El Camino Real (San Jose, California)
• Northern California (Sacramento)
• San Diego
• San Joaquin (Fresno, California)

So I have the following questions: Should all bishops in the United States be included in the parent category? Should the bishops that belong to one of the existing subcategories be removed from the parent category? Should all 100 dioceses have their own separate category and if so should they be broken down into the eight provinces that they are members of see: Dioceses of the Episcopal Church Or should only a limited number of additional sub categories be created based on some fixed minimum number of members in the category? I am looking forward to some feedback from those more experienced in the categorization process than I currently am. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

note: this question was moved from the list of CFDs on 9/13 to this talk page by me --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have a general question. Hope this is an OK place to post it. I recently decided to do a little cleanup on the category Category:People from Portland, Oregon -- it's getting very large, and I thought it would be helpful to move a number of the entries to various Category:People from Portland, Oregon by occupation pages.

I realized that some of this could be done systematically: that is, any entry in both Category:Musicians from Oregon and Category:People from Portland, Oregon could be moved to Category:Musicians from Portland, Oregon and removed from both other categories.

So, here's my question. I used the AWB program to accomplish this, which I haven't really used before. I figured out how to use it for the task, but unless I'm missing something, it doesn't allow me to make Category changes without appending the words "per CFD" to the edit summary. I can understand why there might be concern about people using AWB for categorization outside of the CFD process in many cases, but this one seems pretty uncontroversial to me. In this case, as I was experimenting and carefully double-checking my work, I simply "ignored all rules" and proceeded with an inaccurate edit summary; but that's obviously not an idea approach in general.

If I want to do this sort of thing in the future, what's the best way to go about it? Should I simply post a brief note here item in CfD before making the changes, even in an uncontroversial case? -Pete (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to the proper venue, Starch -- I've got it on my watchlist now. -Pete (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to freely change the summary in AWB to whatever you need. The only "mandatory" part that you can't change is the "Using AWB" part at the end. There are some built-in default edit summaries, such as the one you used, however you should be able to click in that field and change it as well. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:41, 14 Elul 5771 / 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right -- sorry, I didn't realize that the text from the drop-down list was editable! OK, never mind then :) -Pete (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, songs are not produced; recordings of songs however, may be produced. For example, Phil Spector did not produce the song "Let it Be (song)", he produced a recording of that song; George Martin produced another recording of that song. Some possibilities:

• Song recordings by producer
• Audio recordings by producer

The latter also covers instrumentals, recitals, etc. Uniplex (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I nominated a bunch of aviation categories for speedy renaming at CFDS and they were contested. Basically, I want to take all the categories currently at CFDS and a lot more (all subcats of Category:Aircraft by era that have a year range – I estimate about 20% are at CFDS) to a full CfD and I'm wondering what the best way is for me to go about this? Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that there is consensus to have this pass? If the answer is no, then it is not worth the effort. If the answer is yes, you need to do it manually or find a bot operator to do this. WP:AWB may help with the work here. But in the end, they will all need listing. The exception would be if you nominate a group and they pass, then the remainder can go the speedy route. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that if I nominate at CfD the consensus will be to move them all. That said, I can't see a good reason why the consensus shouldn't be to rename – every other category/article follows the MoS on this issue. I've never used AWB and it would take me forever to do it manually, so I guess I'll try and find a friendly bot op. Jenks24 (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How many pages do you need tagged? ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:13, 21 Elul 5771 / 05:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 20#Hyphenated aircraft categories. There are 155 currently nominated, and over 2000 all up. My original plan was to nominate all 2000 in one hit, but Mike started the CfD and I figured it would be easier not to fiddle with it. Anyway, Mike has said that if the CfD consensus of those 155 is to rename, then the other 2000 or so can be listed at CFDW/Large. Does that mean they would not have to be tagged? Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's recently been brought up at my talk page that the two examples given for the C2B criteria at CFDS contradict each other (see User talk:Jenks24#Category renaming). Basically the first example supports expanding "U.S." to "United States", while the second example uses "Georgia (U.S. state)". My assumption is that it would be easiest just to use a different example, but thought I should check here first before changing anything. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that there is at least potential for confusion in using the "Georgia (U.S. state)" example. I'd have no problem in changing it to something else—maybe we could use "Washington (state)" or "Victoria (Australia)", both of which are equally common. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well no-one's objected (and it seems pretty uncontroversial), so I went ahead and made the change, using Washington as the example. If people would rather use Victoria or another common dab, then that's fine by me. Jenks24 (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Recently as part of the crusade to add funny dashes to categories the aircraft decade categories were raised a number of times for change and eventually gained a consensus. Not all of the aircraft categories were changed and a lot of templates are now broken with a mixture of en and em dashes in use. One the points constantly raised by the supporters of change was dont worry redirects will be created. This didnt happen and now the whole category tree is in a right mess, can we make sure as this crusade to change from the hyphens in categories continues that other projects are not left with a huge mess to clear up, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This category has been deleted before the discussion has closed - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_30#Category:Art_journals. The nom was to merge it, but NONE of the several people commenting supported that, & the nom arguments were trashed. There were two oppose votes & two for a rename, which (as one of the opposes) is certainly better than a merge. Who did this? Of course one can't see, as non-admin. 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Of course you can see who deleted this category. All you need do is go to the category (or, rather, where it used to be) and you'll see a pink window telling you which admin deleted the cat. Then you can ask him/her why this was done. I'd advice you to take a deep breath before doing that, though... BTW, as I said already at the CfD, your idea of "trashed" is rather biased... :-) --Crusio (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorted - a Japanese editor who is either very inexperienced or disruptive emptied it & placed a delete template on it. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Case in point, Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and magazines needs to be split into Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and Category:Roman Catholic magazines? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Create the two new ones in the current parent and then move the articles and the one newspaper subcategory. The traditionalist subcategory might be too small to split. If so, the best option could be to move those articles into multiple parents or only create one subcategory based on the size and move the remainders. I'm basing this on the fact that splits of combined topics are generally found to be desirable, but there are exceptions. If you want to remove Category:Roman Catholic newspapers and magazines after the split into subcategories, that will need a CfD to upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a tag indicating this should be done? Because I may not have the time or will to fix that category myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You could tag the category with {{Category diffuse}}. --Vclaw (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of times where category renaming proposals that clearly qualify for speedy renaming are brought to full CfD, without being speedied/objected to first. Is it kosher to speedy-close those and process them as speedy renaming after 48 hours if there aren't any objections, or do they have to run through the whole process anyway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, that's fine, and I'm sure I've seen it done lots of times. In fact, I've probably done it myself (not that I close many CfD nominations these days, that is...) Bencherlite^Talk 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been doing other things for a few weeks, when I got back I find that Category:Category B listed buildings has moved to Category:Category B listed buildings in Scotland "per CFDS". Fine, but why not Category:Category A listed buildings or Category:Category C listed buildings? Is this just an oversight? Note that if the latter is moved it should go to Category:Category C(s) listed buildings in Scotland as Historic Scotland use the terminology C(s). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I never get back around to listed those and no one else did. I just did a speedy for the two you mentioned. I did not do C to C(S) since that would not be a speedy. I'd suggest letting the speedy happen in two days and then nominate it for a full discussion. BTW, I checked the lead article and if renamed that should really be to Category:Category C(S) listed buildings in Scotland. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here, User:Stemonitis, an admin who rather prides himself on pushing the boundaries of WP:IAR, has deleted two categories, and despite complaints by four editors has refused to restore them & take it to CFD, and do anything other than argue that he is right. I have no view on the issue at all (turtle taxons), but process should be followed in the area of deletion above all. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also posted this ANI here Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to propose upmerging Category:Maccabiah cricketers of Australia, Category:Maccabiah cricketers of Great Britain, Category:Maccabiah cricketers of India‎ and Category:Maccabiah cricketers of South Africa into Category:Maccabiah cricketers, but I'm not really sure how to go about it. Any pointers would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A dash should have spaces before and after it unless it joins two single words. United States, South Africa, and other countries with two words in their name should not be placed immediately after a dash. Whoever is doing this needs to stop or provide a damn good reason besides "per MOS". I have removed the list to encourage people to discuss this since this venue just seems to do things in the background while most are unaware. This is a standard English rule, and if its changed in the MOS that needs to be reverted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the main CfDs that caused me to post those, there is a recent change to the MOS calling for this - see the 31 October page, where I assumed good faith that the MOS did indeed call for these, and nobody objected to my saying they were speedy-able. Also, the cats should not be removed from the CFDS page, they should be moved to the "objected to" section. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is now changed, and these can proceed under the speedy renaming to conform with the MOS. We don't make MOS policy on this page. We just enforce it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the articles be moved before the categories for these? There has been controversy as to whether the articles will or will not be moved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sierra Leonean murder victims and Category:People murdered in Sierra Leone seem to be redundant duplicate cats. Currently, both have 2 entries which are identical. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The first is a nationality category. The second is a place of murder category. Not all Sierra Leonean murder victims will be murdered in Sierra Leone. Not all people murdered in Sierra Leone will be of Sierra Leonean nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Admins - pull your fingers out and sort this out. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

...Er, there's probably a more appropriate way to request this. It's likely that no one will want to help out when this is the tone of the request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the "H" in "honorees" be lowercase (Category:Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year Honorees)? If so, can this category name be corrected? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a question on what should be in Category:Clock towers and the various sub categories. If you read clock towers, it is clear that they are towers with clocks. However they can include towers or facades on buildings with clocks. The inclusion of the latter is somewhat problematic. Most of the articles currently in those categories are not standalone towers, but fall into the later type. In addition from my reading a several articles, the existance and importance of the clock tower is rarely if ever mentioned in the articles. That makes the feature not defining and the category should be removed since the article text does not support inclusion in the category.

If all of these were removed, it is likely that some of the categories would experience significant depopulation.

Renaming the category is one way to address this, however I believe that the category is correctly named. So would adding an introduction to the categories that states that only standalone towers should be included be the better way to go? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks - I'm not really around here enough these days to handle a task the size of this one, but perhaps someone can have a look at Category:Culture by city? It seems to be a mishmas of "Culture in Foo", "Culture of Foo" , and "Foo culture", plus one "Fooian culture". The subcat Category:Culture by nationality and city may similarly need work. Someone with a few hours free might like to do a batch nom on it all...? Grutness...wha? 10:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle can now nominate categories for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS. Hopefully cat-fans find this useful. Any bugs should be reported to WT:TW. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good news indeed. That's an extra facility that will be very useful to people, I'm sure. Bencherlite^Talk 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice that User:Hazard-SJ has set up User:Hazard-Bot to run through CfDS - this seems like it'll conflict with the way things are supposed to work.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is the bot suppose to do? It is not explained. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What CydeBot does. Except not as good, as it was 1. moving CFDS categories before 48 hours were up, and 2. was creating new categories without attribution of the contributiors to the previous name of the category. I've stopped the bot (I think) and posted on both Hazard's talk page and that of the bot's approver, User:Chris G, to discuss here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the categories done to the CFDS page - I think we should undo the moves, delete the categories created (by the user, not the bot, in all cases) and then start 'fresh' on these. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've managed to undo most of the mess to the way it was 'before', so that the cats can be processed under the normal CFDS process. The following need to be restored:
  • Category:Israel–Lebanon conflict/Category:Israeli–Lebanese conflict
  • Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes in Canada/Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in Canada
  • Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes in France/Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in France
  • Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes in Germany/Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in Germany
  • Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes in the United Kingdom/Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Xerox employees/Category:Xerox people
  • Category:Military Communication of Feudal Japan/Category:Military communication in feudal Japan

but I have to head off now, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the 48 hours the time from when the CfD was created? I haven't been doing any that have been created before 48 hours were up, unless I am misunderstanding. However, that might need to be taken out of the BRFA. I was unaware of Cydebot, and I assume Chris G might have forgotten about it.  Hazard-SJ  ±  21:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few of the CfDS candidates that were that were moved hadn't had 48 hours yet - the most recent had been nominated at 01:27, 18 November 2011; it had had ~36 hours or so. No big worries about being WP:BOLD; I would suggest going Greyhound Cydebot and leaving the drivingcats to usit, though. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, if you had were not aware of Cydebot one has to wonder how much checking was done on the entire CfD process. I fail to see how this bot was approved without some kind of notice here. And if The Bushranger is correct, turning it on without test is just unforgivable. Yea, I consider not being able to count to 48 no testing. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The times of the timestamps were compared, and were +2 days exactly.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Er...then your computer's clock must be off. Because at 12:15 on the 19th - when you made the first edit - a category submitted for renaming at 18:40 on the 17th has not been up for 48 hours. [4]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree on both, vote NO

• Category:United States Navy inactive aircraft squadrons to Category:Inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons – C2C: The current name makes it appear that these are squadrons containing inactive aircraft.

--The words "inactive aircraft" are adjectives to the word "squadrons", current name category is proper and not necessary.

• Category:United States Naval Outlying Fields to Category:United States Naval Outlying Landing Fields – C2C: C2D (Outlying Landing Field)

-- Changing this name changes the orginally Navy terminology, why change the correct terminology.

Time doing these actions is better spent on expanding the stubs in these two categories, but in hundreds of other stubs. Cheers! Time to eat more turkey... LanceBarber (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted on the category pages, please put your comments at the categories' entries on the speedy renaming section of the Categories for discussion page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Should Category:Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year Honorees be renamed to simply Category:Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year? For one, "Honorees" should be lowercase and I am not sure it is necessary at all. This would also make the category name similar to MusiCares Person of the Year (a similar award). --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Would one of the regulars here look at Category:Wikipedians with lounges as user pages? It seems totally unnecessary, but CfD is terra incognita to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please rename Steaua's categorys. 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.235.136 (talk)

CVan you please tell us exactly which category should be renamed, what it should be renamed to, and why? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)