This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 19 |
Would it be better if Category:Singles certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, Category:Singles certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, Category:Singles certified quadruple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and Category:Singles certified sextuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America be merged into one category entitled Category:Singles certified Multi-Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Are category redirects still within the scope of WP:CFD? Last time I checked, they were in the scope of CFD and not of WP:RFD. As category redirects still categorize things (and a bot will recategorize everything in one), it seems that they are still functioning categories, and unlike redirects of other namespaces, the RFDkeep reasons don't seem to apply to category redirects (such as typo-named categories, keeping names of categories as a redirects that were renamed, etc). Category redirects are not cheap, from my understanding of these things. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 10:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that a requirement be added to the WP:CFD page that category creators must be notified. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. This is not a vote. If it were, then deletionists would always win on these type of category deletionist/renamer talk pages. Some people initiating the category deletion/renames may not want the bother of notifying the category creators, because some category creators don't want to be notified. This is a bogus reason not to notify the category creators. I and many others believe that category creators should be notified.
People complain about the lack of participation in category discussions. Requiring notification would help for any type of category renaming or discussion. Getting complaints for notifying people comes with the work. Edit summaries are not a great way to notify category creators. The edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as "cfr rename" or "cfd" or "speedy" or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases. Also, many times there are later edits to clarify the deletion notice. So category creators may not ever see any notice of deletion, because later clarification edits may only say something like "clarify."
The root problem is the desire for speedy renames by some category deletionist/renamers. Almost anything that slows them down they try to do away with. They write the rules for the most part at pages such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. The associated talk pages are mostly a waste of time for someone like me, since they are populated mostly by fulltime category deletionist/renamers. That is why attempts to get notification of category creators goes nowhere.
Concerning speedy renames, it actually does not take any more time in the end if all category deletion/renames were done via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and eliminating speedy renames for the most part. It all rotates around to getting done. Doing speedy renames based on article names is going to cause many problems since categories don't always line up neatly with articles.
Notifying category creators does take some time. Maybe a bot could be created to notify category creators. If they were notified then Wikipedia would keep more people donating money. Many people stop donating to Wikipedia due to deletions, and especially speedy deletions. Deletions in general, not just categories. See:
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline - ignore the closer comment that insults people's motivations. It may take some reading to understand that discussion. But notice that other people soon joined in discussing their problems related to deletions, especially speedy deletions. Many people have discussed the problem of non-admin closes of category discussions. Per WP:NAC. Just like speedy renames, both are resolved incorrectly if done without unambiguous consensus. Requiring notification, getting rid of speedy deletions, and banning non-admin closes would go a long way towards stopping the abuse, the mistakes, and the lack of accountability. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I love this: "Wikiprojects are just clubs of users who work together—nothing more." Well, so are deletionist/renamers. By the way, that is not an insult, nor meant as an insult. It is an accurate description of what is being done. The fact that some rude, smug, abusive, or speedy deletionists are despised, does not make all deletionists rude, nor despised. I delete/rename/create categories all the time on the Commons. Hundreds of them.
I observe that Good Ol’factory and some others here have ignored my point that edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as "cfr rename" or "cfd" or "speedy" or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases. Also, many times there are later edits to clarify the deletion notice. So category creators may not ever see any notice of deletion, because later clarification edits may only say something like "clarify." So watchlisting alone is not the solution. The deletionist/renamers need to notify people.
I suggest you create a bot to do it. Then the bot talk page can get any nasty replies. Notifying wikiprojects is helpful, but many wikiproject members don't check wikiproject pages daily, or even weekly. Many wikiprojects go through phases of involvement by its members.
The only sure way is to notify category creators on their talk page. It is easy to create a {{cfd notify}} template to paste onto talk pages. That template should say that notification is required, and if they don't want to be notified they need to put a one-sentence {{no cfd notify}} tag at the top of their page. The {{cfd notify}} template should also link to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion so people can discuss notification. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Here are some userboxes. It is too much to expect many category workers to give a damn. One thing that may change things over time is community understanding, and support for change. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it seem reasonable to notify the nominator of contested speedy nominations? The speedy page gets so many updates and I don't review them all, but I'd really like to know when my own nominations are contested. Since the majority of these nominations are completed without opposition, such notification seems like a reasonable burden to put on those who oppose the nominations. – Pnm ( talk) 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has voiced a concern or objection regarding your nomination to speedily rename Category:Foo to Category:Bar. Your thoughts, if you would like to share them, would be appreciated at the category's entry on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy page.
With the goal of encouraging more longtime CfD editors to become admins, I've nominated User:Fayenatic london for adminship. If you have opinions on this request, please add them on the RfA page. Thanks!-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
A requirement should be added to the WP:CFD page that Wikiprojects must be notified when a related category is proposed for modification or deletion. This would be a duty of the nominator at the time of nomination.
Rationale: By contacting the Project talk page it is more likely that Project editors (who will often know the subject in hand far better than the nominator) will be aware of the change and familiarise themselves with the impact of the change. Placing this administrative burden on the CfD nominator will reduce the disruption that contentious or poorly thought-through CfD nominations cause. By making the nominator think about the relevant Project, it will improve the quality of the CfD proposal.
Tendentious nominations are the category world's equivalent of 3RR but are never censured. An earlier proposal to notify category creators met no consensus, but it raised the idea of notifying Projects when a CfD proposal came about. This has got a lot of merit. The CfD process has been abused for some time by full-time CfD editors. They repeatedly submit categories for renaming or deletion, in the full knowledge that it was previously contentious, while avoiding notifying previous participants in the earlier CfD (whose logical arguments caused a similar proposal to be rejected.) (Per Timeshifter writing here on 7 December 2011: The root problem is the desire for speedy renames by some category deletionist/renamers. Almost anything that slows them down they try to do away with.) IME requests to the nominator to contact parties with an interest in the topic are mostly ignored. When I have had the time to do it myself I have been accused of canvassing! This rudeness causes ill-will. When some of these changes are rejected the nominator may wait for a few months, then try to resubmit the offending categories piecemeal or in small groups which can slip in 'under the radar'. They then claim it as a "standard" to set as a precedent for rolling out those other changes. This sneaky behaviour forces editors away from editing to keep an eye on changes being proposed at CfD. Ephebi ( talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is general agreement here that notification of WikiProjects is usually a Good Thing™, and should be encouraged. I share that view, and also share the reservation that it is not always appropriate.
However, the usability of our current notification mechanisms is abysmal: the {{ cfd-notify}}cannot cope effectively with group nominations, and breaks entirely when the section heading of the group nomination is not a category name. Even for simple nominations, {{ cfd-notify}} is cumbersome, requiring lots of parameters which need checking ... and when it is done, we do not have a template for recording the notification in the discussion (some equivalent to {{ delsort}}).
So my initial intention here was propose a drive to improve the usability of the notification templates, and to work with the developers of WP:TWINKLE to incorporate them into Twinkle. My idea was that if there was a WikiProjects-to-notify facility in Twinkle, then the script could automate the whole thing in a neutral and transparent way. No hassle, much more notices.
But the more I look at this, the more I think that any such mechanism is reinventing the wheel. We already have the Article alerts system, a hugely-sophisticated and customisable machine which automatically builds project-based lists of all XfDs. Why duplicate that work by spamming talk pages?
It seems to me that there are three things to be done to improve the ability of Article Alerts to generate awareness of CfD discussions:
That turns some of the onus over to WikiProjects to be more proactive in taking steps to increase their awareness of XfDs, which seems to me to be a Good Thing™ because it leaves projects free to decide how much they want to engage with XfD. The alternatives, of posting directly to the project's talk pages, look very spammy by comparison. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is at least causing some confusion eg Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_15#Category:Categories_named_after_companies_by_industry, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Eponymous_categories There doesn't seem to be a method for just discussion so I brought this here.
Question : is it right that subcategories of Category:Eponymous categories - specifically those that are of the form "Categories named after" should be labelled Template:Hidden category (obviously excluding ctageories that are not tracking or maintence categories - ie Category:Arab Spring ? Mddkpp ( talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like clarification for the procedures of opposed "speedy moves". Not being a usual frequenter of category questions, I am not sure how these work. But a category I created was nominated for speedy move two days ago. I opposed it [7], and the discussion continued thereafter [8], etc. But the category was moved nonetheless today. I had understood opposed category moves would be reclassified for longer discussion and not be maintained on schedule for speedy moves. I know RMs have seven days of discussion, so I thought something like that was going to happen here, and took time prepare my a more elaborate reply, including various alternative proposals to moving, only to find that it was moved already today. Is this procedurally correct? What is exactly the timetable for these things? Walrasiad ( talk) 20:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy are not clear about what to do when a speedy renaming is contested.
Current practice is that when a listed category is contested, the entry is moved down the page the to a holding area, where some discussion may follow. However, the instructions are unclear about what should happen next. They currently read: Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.
My reading of this has always been that if any objection is sustained, the renaming cannot proceed through the speedy process. To my mind, this accords with the general principle that a speedy process (such as speedy deletion) is reserved for uncontroversial issues where there is an assumption of consensus for the action. However, another admin recently read it as allowing admin discretion in assesing the objection and any comments made in response to the objection.
I see three options here:
My preference is for option 2. I suggest that the guidance be changed to say something to the effect of:
Any thoughts? Ideas? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since an RFC proposal is supposed to be brief, this seems like the place to set out in more detail why I support a clear restriction on continuing with a renaming in the case of a sustained objection.
One concern I can see about allowing an objector to simply block a speedy renaming is that this power may be abused, by frivolous or vexatious objections. I am quite sure that there will indeed be some frivolous or vexatious objections, but we have dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with that sort of thing, and if any editor persistently abuses the process by contesting speedies which are upheld at CFD it will amount to tendentious editing. The community has mechanisms for dealing with tendentious editing wherever it occurs, so there is no specific need to lock down this procedure to prevent it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that all Washington categorized topics use Washington (state) instead of just Washington. In categories such as Category:Companies based in Washington (state), the disambiguation is unnecessary. The only other possible search term is Category:Companies based in Washington, D.C. which is a natural disambiguation. I see that there was a discussion back in 2008, but per WP:PRECISE, shouldn't the disambiguations be removed? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the template populates a category, dropping a note here.
Also, could anyone clueful take a look at Template:tfd? Unlike Template:cfd (et al) it apparently merely links to the WP:TFD page and not to the specific log page in question. It was annoying trying to get to the actual discussion for this (especially since the discussion was relisted : )
Would be nice if it had at least the functionality of the cfd/cfr/cfm templates to link directly to the log page in question. Thanks : ) - jc37 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you lok at the subcats of the subcats, most do not specify Wikipedia articles....
I would like to suggest that any cat starting with the phrase Articles with should be considered enough to consider it a project category. Other such words are Wikipedia, Wikipedian, WikiProject, Wikiquote, etc. (Note that if we force renames on all these, my read is that some bots may need adjusting.)
Otherwise, all of these probably need to come up for renaming. Is there a speedy criteria that would cover this directly? (B2?) And if not, why not? - jc37 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested. - jc37 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone do the requsite tagging for the subcategories of Category:Anime by year of first release and Category:Manga by year of first release. — Dispenser 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Code | Result |
---|---|
{{ User Catbox}} |
I have found this useful for my userpage. Thought I would share : ) - jc37 01:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, just about every biography article of a deceased subject matter categorizes them by how they died. And how someone dies can certainly be notable. For an obvious example, assassination victims are often partly notable for how they died. On the other end of the spectrum, how could dying from a lightning strike possibly influence how you lived your life (short of not golfing in the rain)? There are certainly more nuanced examples in between those two extremes that we would disagree on.
I think the universal application of cause of death is largely a source bias of using obituaries rather than a real consensus that we should make Wikipedia a morbidity report, WP:NOT. I would like to establish a concensus that not every biography needs a cause of death cat. That would allow us to consider individual nominations for deletion on their own merits without falling back to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
What do other editors think? RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have modified the wording of speedy renaming criterion C2.D to clarify that it can apply only to topic categories. Only a topic category can have an 'eponymous article'. The title of a set category will differ from the title of its 'main' article due to plurality – e.g., Economist (singular) and Category:Economists (plural) – or list naming, e.g., List of economists.
What prompted me to make this change was the continuing presence of speedy renaming nominations that involve changing a topic category into a set category, or vice versa. Such changes are, in many cases, reasonable, but they are not the unambiguous and uncontroversial changes for which speedy renaming is reserved. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In the last several days there have been many CFDs for occupational categories where the people in question gained notability through some other means. For example, Category:House painters contains five members: two union activists, two politicians, and a fellow who tried to assassinate Andrew Jackson. The CFD entry for this category is generating a lot of discussion, and there are at least a dozen other similar discussions underway at the moment, with a lot of other candidate categories waiting in the wings. Some of these categories can be dealt with simply because they are small and because there are parents waiting to receive them, but often enough these categories present the same issue I've described here (for example, Jesus is a member of Category:Carpenters). The problem is exacerbated by various people who drifted from occupation to occupation (e.g. Thomas Lavy, who worked as an electrician among several types of jobs) and who get listed under each.
My personal opinion is that in general these categorizations come under trivial characteristics or intersection. I would prefer that people be categorized under the work that made them famous. The occupational connection between Jesus and Harrison Ford is largely trivia, even if for the latter carpentry did provide an in with George Lucas and meant that he didn't have to fake his work in Witness. I recognize for the union activists and politicians that there is frequently a direct line from their initial occupation to their political activity, but it still seems to me, when it comes down to it, that Samuel Gompers could well have been a plumber or any other skilled tradesman instead of rolling cigars.
At any rate, there are as I said a number of these discussions, and it seemed to me better to establish a general principle here rather than repeating much of the same argument over and over again. Mangoe ( talk) 19:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm torn on this issue. What I want to see achieved is consistency. The two ways I see to achieve this is to 1) allow all these occupation categories to exist or 2) delete the ones that do not have any worthwhile purpose and aggressively maintain the others. The problem with option 1 is that it goes against existing policies such as overcat while option 2 means that a lot of time and effort is required from a lot of editors to maintain consistency. If categories such as Foo lawyers remain for notable lawyers then well meaning editors are going to add every sportsperson or politician who is also a lawyer, to achieve consistency this type of categorisation would have to be patrolled, otherwise there is justification for Foo plumber for every sportsperson or politician who is also a plumber. Mattlore ( talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to side track this discussion, but, setting aside the subjectivity of "famous", why do we need to categorise people by occupation anyway? What harm would we be causing to navigation if this entire tree was gone? - jc37 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a degree to which I am sympathetic to arguments being applied to Samuel Gompers; I am willing to accept the principle that, for labor leaders and perhaps some other groups, the other occupation is significant, and thus for example I could be persuaded that a "labor leader by occupation" category tree might be appropriate. However, I continue to disbelieve that the secondary employment of rugby players and murderers is significant, and I have considerable doubts about that of politicians. I'm likewise dubious about categorizing every job of those who took a while to work out their proper vocation. Therefore while I still would prefer as an overarching principle that people not be categorized under occupations in which they were not notable, I would also admit the possibility of working out certain field-specific exceptions in which people notable in one field would be categorized under that field according to secondary occupations. Mangoe ( talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that only those occupations in which people create a work which is presented/published, should be categorised. (I'll reluctantly agree to celebrities as well...)
To use housepainters as an example. People typically do not have news articles written about them for being good housepainters. (A human interest story being a possible exception.) The reason, or even the cause célèbre, is typically for something else.
So with that in mind, I'd like help assembling a list of what would fall under that criteria. And of course there already exists some criteria for certain inclusions (such as for criminals).
Each page linked below has on it a list of "subtypes" of occupations which would fall under this heading.
Can anyone think of any others which should be categorised based upon the criteria I set out above? - jc37 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read all of the above comments (it's a pile-up), but I'm putting in my two cents' worth just the same. So which question are we debating here?: (1) Whether or not to eliminate occupations as categories, period; or (2) Whether or not to remove these categories from biographies that list them incidentally? My opinion on #1, is keep the occupations as categories, even the trades ("blue collar" jobs). "Carpenters" could be included in articles about historical periods, union activity, engineering and economic developments, labour migration, to name a few. Aside from being used for articles on broad topics, yes, I can see the occupation categories being used for notable people who worked in a trade as a main occupation -- see Thomas Crapper, who is in category "Plumbers". There may not be tons of biographies like that, but so what, it ain't any less valid. Now as for debate #2, whether or not to remove them from biographies where they are just incidental information -- say, Harrison Ford, who was a carpenter at one point -- I'd say remove them, because the point of the categories is to facilitate searching I believe, and clogging up the category with trivia references is counter-productive, similar to how editors had started adding "pop culture references" to the bottom of many articles, and those ended up being cleaned up and removed... WP should focus on notability and not trivia, and my view is that Harrison Ford's former occupation as a carpenter is, however interesting, still trivia. OttawaAC ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categorisation_of_content_and_project_pages - jc37 01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
D. A rename instating concordance of category and article naming. - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
I found this wording inscrutable and had to look up "instate" to be sure what it meant ("install" appears to be the closest synonym). Paired with "concordance" it produces an obfuscated phrase that calls for a copy edit. My attempt, "maintaining concordance", was reverted because it has the undesirable interpretation that the category might previously been in concord with its article name which the current wording avoids. I'd welcome any suggestions that allow the less erudite among us to understand this guidance. Perhaps:
D. A rename unifying category and article naming.
Joja lozzo 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#How_to_use_Cfd is really complicated. Does anyone really follow it?
The following guidance is much easier:
Why is there no mention of Twinkle currently? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to a nomination today, I wonder if deletion of category redirects should be a speedy deletion nomination or does each require a full discussion? These should be empty but {{ db-c1}} should not apply to these. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of this one. could you please delete the first one? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 09:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see my note here. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently, category-related discussions tend to be spread out over the talkpages of WP:CFD; WP:CAT, WP:NCCAT; WP:CLS; and elsewhere. Awhile back, it seemed to me that having a category-related noticeboard might be nice, so I cobbled one together. Recently, some helpful person added a notice on WP:CAT about it. So at this point, I welcome others' thoughts on this. What do you think about it, and if positive, how and where do you think we should notify others of its existence? - jc37 06:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Terminology. Please advise if it needs moving here. Spinning Spark 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help to put the articles from Category:Clock towers in the United States into the state specific categories? Royaume du Maroc ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the wording of Speedy renaming criterion C2D is a little too loose, insofar as it affects primary topics.
There is no stable consensus on whether category names should match article titles in cases where those article titles are ambiguous, but have been deemed to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In full CFD discussions, the outcome can go either way, and the closest I can devise to a neutral summary of the consensus of recent discussions is that editors apply a stricter interpretation of "primary topic" in category space than in article space. How much stricter seems to vary (and I am usually on the very strict side of any argument) ... but this is a glaring exception to the general rule that speedy renamings should be uncontroversial.
C2D currently reads:
The issue arose at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 24#Category:Monmouth.2C_Wales, so prompted by Oculi's suggestion there I propose to add a third bullet point:
Note that my proposal goes slightly further than Oculi's suggestion; the hatnote-related part of the proposal is my idea, but I think it keeps to the spirit of Oculi's suggestion.
Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:01, 24 May 2012 (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.
For now, I think I would suggest something like:
I think that this does what is being suggested above. And should clear up at least some confusion. Alternate proposals welcome. - jc37 14:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Updated Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria. - jc37 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Somebody has reorganized the sub-categories under Category:Bridges by century into individual years going back to before the current era, so that there are now a great many categories with only one article each, and very little likelihood of any additional members. In earlier centuries, there may be only a few years in which any (now verifiable) bridge was built, but each such year now has its own category. This seems to be extreme over-categorization. As I am very rarely (if ever) involved in discussions here, I am asking for guidance on how to approach this. -- Donald Albury 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
We are currently discussing the possibility of moving stub type discussions into categories for discussion (as well as other venues). Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know about Category:Disestablishments in the United States by year? Seems like these are starting to be nominated for speedy deletion as empty. Were they emptied out of process? Should they be populated? Do we need this tree? No matter what, I don't see a reason to keep the by decade categories in this tree. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Police brutality in England is now being discussed at two separate concurrent CfDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_31#Category:Police_brutality_in_England and a group nom at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 1#Police brutality]].
Can an uninvolved admin please try to unravel this? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk now is going on at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion as to whether we no longer need SfD and whether the category and template stub tasks should be given back to CfD or given to MfD. Please post your thoughts there. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Culture by city has no consistent formula with Culture in/of city and city culture all in use. I wonder what people's initial thoughts are before nominating, also can we got a bot to tag everything (there over 200 categories when you include Category:Culture by nationality and city). Tim! ( talk) 08:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed Category:Mosques in Hamburg listed as DB-c1. In looking at that it appears to have been emptied out of process. I repopulated a few categories. I guess the question here is do we want to support mosques by city or other subdivisions? Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
One side effect of moving stub discussions on templates over here is illustrated by the look of John O'Neil (painter) where the category renaming template is splashed on the article page. In this case, the information in the box is wrong since we are not proposing to rename the category just merge the templates. Not sure how this needs to be addressed, but we need a solution sooner rather then later. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that SFD has been closed, and discussions are to be moved here, we need to discuss how to implement that.
I have just closed a bunch of stub templates nominated at today's CFD, because CFD is for categories not templates. How exactly do we want to structure and format stub discussions here? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Message left at WT:SFD pointing to this discussion. Bencherlite Talk 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
From a brief perusal of the SFD talk page (not having been involved at all with SFD during its life) it seems that the question you raise, of whether CFD should handle stub categories and TFD should handle stub templates, has already been answered very recently with the consensus view that discussion of both types should be kept together and that the new venue for both should be CFD. If the problem is that some of the nominations say "category:X stub" when they should say "template:X stub", that can be easily sorted I hope. At the moment, if everyone else at CFD follows your example and refuses to accept stub templates for discussion or deletion at CFD, then it's difficult to see what people are meant to do - they're simply following the instructions at SFD and TFD and coming here! Bencherlite Talk 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that if a nomination does not involve any deletion or rename of any category, then the nomination does not belong at CfD. If the nomination does involve deletion or rename of any category, then the category needs to lead the nomination. Is there a problem with that? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't have a problem with the idea of discussing templates at CfD. (I've often though that navboxes and lists should be discussed at cfd due to similar usage - see WP:CLS.) - jc37 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me why Cydebot ( talk · contribs · logs) is deleting hundreds of these redirects? I can't find them listed at WP:CFD/W and the large majority that I checked had never been tagged for CfD and were not listed at the log page that is being referenced by Cydebot in the deletion log. What am I missing? Jenks24 ( talk) 00:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion was back in April but it was agreed then to not implement it until today. Because there were so many of them they were listed on the Working/Large page for big jobs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Should Canis Resort be categorized as a hotel? While it is a hotel, that category is for facilities used by people, right? Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's nice that the three stub discussions on June 13 CFD page surrounding a discussion on Superfund sites in New Jersey, because that ironically parallels the decision to close the poorly attended WP:SFD and dump the contents onto CFD without there first being a discussion on the CFD talk page itself. There's no problem with moving stub categories over here, but there's no mechanism for closing and implementing discussions stub-based discussions here. WP:CFDW doesn't have spaces to handle them; Cydebot is not set up for them; and editors on CFD don't know how to close them (or at least I don't). And it's also completely illogical that a stub is treated like a category, since, well, it isn't one. If discussions like the ones on June 13 are to be closed, these procedures need to be put into place, or some new Superfund site needs to be found. Meantime, I'm closing all of them as no consensus pending the implementation of some way to handle it.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kinda too late now, but I noticed that all F.C. Internazionale Milano categories have been renamed to Inter Milan per C2D. If you look at the Talk:Inter Milan, you'll find out that it's not exatcly "longstanding stability at at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename". Mentoz86 ( talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that category: Men Nurses has been deleted and replaced by Category:Male nurses. Was there a discussion about this? - If so how do I find it? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
One of my recent category edits has been re-directed by a bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Marie_Curie&diff=511351103&oldid=511333713 to a category that is inappropriate for this article. What can be done? Is this the right place to post such questions? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
On the English WP, there are 200 dufferent French "grandes écoles".
50% of them are self-proclaimed "grandes écoles" ; the appellation "grandes écoles", as already said above, is not protected by law.
During the telecom boom, dozens of "opportunistic" telecom engineering schools were created ; they all had very similar names : how many different names can you give to a school which trains future telecom engineers ?
Some engineering schools have very long and boring names ; they are mainly known by their acronym, or by a nickname, like NATO, NASA, or FBI.
You have Supélec = École supérieure d'électricité
Supaéro = École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace nowadays merged into ISAE = Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace
Supaéro also had an acronym ENSAE, but this acronym was shared by another school : École nationale de la statistique et de l'administration économique located in Paris.
The following example is particularly demonstrative :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENSEEIHT
da:ENSEEIHT
es:ENSEEIHT
fr:École nationale supérieure d'électrotechnique, d'électronique, d'informatique, d'hydraulique et des télécommunications
is:ENSEEIHT
it:ENSEEIHT
ru:Высшая государственная школа электротехники, электроники, информатики, гидравлики и телекоммуникаций
zh:国立高等电力技术、电子学、计算机、水力学与电信学校
No French native knowing the school would be able to pronounce the name ; they would know the acronym without knowing for what words or conceps the letters stand for.
If you see ENSEEIHT, Toulouse, you very quickly get the information ; you know that it is kind of engineering school situated in Toulouse ; easy to pronounce.
The pronounciation of the acronym would be similar to ENSET, Ecole normale supérieure de l'enseignement technique, situated in Cachan, (ENSET, Cachan).
If you look at the electronics engineering schools, it is even more confusing !
Therefore, I propose following conventions :
Full name with French spelling (acronym or nickname, town, country code in case of doubt).
This convention would make the list of French grandes écoles much clearer, quicker to read and to pronounce.
All above examples would now result in :
École supérieure d'électricité (Supélec, Gif-sur-Yvette)
Ecole normale supérieure de l'enseignement technique (ENSET, Cachan)
Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE, Toulouse)
and last, but not least, a monstrous long name for a not-so-famous engineering school :
Be careful with the French spelling !
In a long name, there is only one upper case letter for the first word (except of course for proper nouns).
Euroflux ( talk) 19:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
... Looking at this, I think something should be done, but I'm not quite sure what. Any ideas? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
-- 194.127.8.18 ( talk) 11:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Euroflux has not been unblocked on the French WP, but is still indeffed there. I tried to explain at length (see my talk page) to this editor what is wrong with his proposed category names (and article moves), but "he's right" and continues adding these categories to articles. I've undone most of his article moves, but haven't even started at the categories mess (in addition to the addition of improperly named cats, several existing cats have been emptied and any text replaced with "to be removed" outside of the normal CFD procedures). Like The Bushranger, I'm not quite sure what should/can be done. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 15:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Euroflux keeps missing the point. I have never claimed that the cats that I reinstated should remain, only that he should follow proper procedure if he thinks they should be removed. And he keeps ignoring the faulty cats that he created and added to many articles. Not to mention weird sortkeys like exclamation marks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 20:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Guillaume2303 keeps saying that my categories are faulty but he did not give any justification ! Her is my categorizing tree:
This category contains French Grandes écoles, with following subcategories:
The original category "Grandes écoles" was a real mess with all kinds of various "grandes écoles" in so many different fields : science, engineering, business, arts, cinema...
It made no sense !! Again and again, the name " grande école" is not protected by law and any weird school can call themselves "grande école"...
That is why I began sorting out those schools.
The most typically French "grandes écoles" are the Engineering schools like Polytechnique (nothing to do with Institut national polytechnique !!), Centrale, les Mines, les Ponts, etc.... ordered according to a certain hierarchy.
Even more selective than the prestigious engineering schools are the " Ecoles normales" dedicated to mathematics, physics, but as well literature, philosophy, biology, social sciences, etc... Those "écoles normales" train top level scientists, professors, and intellectuals as well.
A special category is then dedicated to économists. A typical French characteristics is that most French renowned economists were originally engineers, alumni of Ecole polytechnique ( Groupe X-Crise,...), les Mines (Nobel Prize Maurice Allais,...), les Ponts(bridge engineers), ENSAE ( Alfred Sauvy,...), ENAC ( Jean Peyrelevade,..)
A fourth category is dedicated to agronomists, biotechnologists & veterinarians... this category is nowadays very important due to the growing importance of biotechnolgy ; there has been a recent merging between aa agronomic school and a vet school.
A fifth category is dedicated to an already existing Category:Business schools in France". This category is much less typically french since French business schools very much copy the US system. The French business schools do not have such a long tradition like their engineering counterparts and are not public, but private, which shows that the French government has long neglected business training, due to the influence of the Catholic religion.
The sixth category is dedicated to those grandes écoles dedicated to training politicians and civil servants. There is the famous - but recent - Ecole nationale d'administration (ENA) created just after the War (1945) by General de Gaulle to democratize the French administration and to get rid of the "Collaboration" spirit with the Germans. There is the relatively renowned Institut d'études politiques ( Sciences Po). This last category is a kind of "copycat" of the French engineer schools. Sciences Po is hardly considered a " grande école" because they recruit just after baccalauréat with not such a tough competitive exam.
The ENA system is a very new one, and reached its peak under Georges Pompidou presidency. The ENA system is now crumbling down due to the growing importance of Europe. Contrary to engineers, who are a worldwide globalized profession, the French civil servant concept will hardly survive in a global world.
Among the 6 categories, the richest one is obviously the category "Grandes écoles for engineers".
In France, when we say "grandes écoles", it is often understated "grandes écoles d'ingénieurs" (Grandes écoles for engineers). Euroflux ( talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
{unindent} here is the description of the Category:Grandes écoles (French engineers) Category:Grandes écoles (French engineers)
Subcategories
This category has the following 6 subcategories, out of 6 total.
► Grandes écoles (French mechanical & civil engineers, materials scientists) (4 C, 14 P) ► Grandes écoles (French mining & nuclear engineers) (9 P) ► Grandes écoles (French aerospace engineers) (2 C, 5 P) ► Grandes écoles (French military engineers) (1 C, 5 P) ► Grandes écoles (French electrical & electronics engineers, computer scientists) (1 C, 16 P) ► Grandes écoles (French physical & chemical engineers) (1 C, 10 P)
Pages in category "Grandes écoles (French engineers)"
The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
Conference of the Directors of French Engineering Schools Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur
Categories:
Grandes écoles French engineers
If you speak of French "grandes écoles" 80% of them train engineers. On the English WP there were 120 of them + probably others not yet identified.
" Grandes écoles" is a touchy subject. There is no official definition of "grandes écoles" and there might be some disagreement about whether a school A is "Grande école" or not. The school A might present themselves as a "grande école" whereas others might consider it as a "petite école". In France, there are endless ideological debates about the suppression of "grandes écoles" in favour of Universities.
Every year there is a ranking by the professional sector ; the "grandes écoles d'ingénieurs" (Grandes écoles for engineers) are split into 3 catégories : A, B, C. The "real" grandes écoles are in fact the A + one part of the B, but hush hush ! Do not hurt egos ! On the French WP there has been a bloody war about a new engineering school named fr:Institut polytechnique des sciences avancées. This is a new school, hardly recognized as an engineering school. They added the word "polytechnique" to their name because fr:Ecole polytechnique is the most prestigious engineering school in France ; it is a kind of advertising trick !
Some wanted to suppress this school out of ideological considerations because it was "private", or not enough recognized, etc... Some students of this school harshly defended their school, which is rather understandable, and they were blocked ! It was long before my arrival. I got suspected of being a sockpuppet of those students which explains why I was blocked.
I made a classification according to the specialty and to the industry, taking into account the French tradition.
Most French top engineering schools ( Polytechnique, Centrale Paris, Mines, Ponts) call themselves "généralistes" : their engineers should theoretically able to understand "everything". In reality, due to French tradition, there is a strong bias towards mathematics and mechanical engineering, which is inherited from the 19th century. Electrical engineering is a bit "parent pauvre" (poor parent). Polytechnique, Mines, Ponts trained top civil servants who directed french administrations especially regarding mining, industry, infrastructures, nuclear,...
The top school for Electrical engineering is " Supélec", École Supérieure d'Électricité. This is an "A" school, but less renowned than the former ones. Amazingly enough, "Supélec" is NOT an "école nationale", which shows that the French government traditionally underestiamted the importance of electricity.
An important branch of electrical engineering is telecommunications but if you look at the history of Télécom ParisTech you can see that the setting up of this school in France was rather laborious !
As a result of minor interest of the French State for Electrical engineering, there are a huge amount of private electrical, electronics and telecom schools. Due to the recent explosion of the telecom sector since 20 years, there has been many new "opportunistic" private telecom schools created.
The most prestigious technical corps in France is the fr:Corps des mines, fr:X-Mines, Polytechnique + Ecole des Mines. Those civil servants have headed France especially since the end of WWII. The mining schools are competent for metallurgy, nuclear sector, the whole industry sector ; they trained as well excellent economists, among them a Nobel prize ( Maurice Allais).
Aerospace has been a great priority in France especially during the last 50 years. Therefore there are quite a few establishments for this sector : Polytechnique, Supaéro, Centrale,...
Contrary to Germany, France has never been so keen on chemistry. This lack of interest is reflected by the relative anonymity of the French schools for chemical engineers or chemists. Concerning physics and chemistry, it is rather unclear whether it belongs to "engineering" (grandes écoles) or to "science" (University). There are quite a few chemistry + physics schools which are not so much renowned.
I have added " materials scientists" to " mechanical engineers", which is the case in the Aerospace industry. This is debatable ; they might be added as well to "chemists".
"Military engineers" ( IA, IETA, IETTM,...) deserve a special category due to French tradition. They have a complete different status and prestige than their counterparts in other countries like the US, UK, Germany... The top engineering school Ecole polytechnique is a military school and has trained up to 60 "Military engineers" per year (the other ones going into the civilian area). " Supaéro" ( ISAE), ENSTA ParisTech, ENSICA, ENSIETA (now ENSTA Bretagne) depend directly from the French DOD. Both schools training the officers of the French Navy and of the Air Force are as well "engineering" schools. Euroflux ( talk) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
{Unindent} Who are you and what do you want exactly ? You are not the "people" ; you are the only user making a fuss about this categorizing. Again and again my cartegory "Grandes écoles (French engineers)" is NOT misleading ; evrybody except you understands that this a category containing grandes écoles training French engineers. I am not the one who created the overall category "Grandes écoles" ; I would have created "French grandes écoles" beacause the system is typically French ; it is important for me to put the word "French" because this is the French system and french grandes écoles have been created to mainly train French engineers... didn't they ? Why are you hairsplitting ? and what do you propose concretely ? And what do you know about the system of French grandes écoles ? Euroflux ( talk) 17:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Grandes écoles (French scientists & intellectuals) and others in Category:Grandes écoles have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
I have a suggestion, categories that have been held in backlog for longer than 1 week be relisted. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this, since I'm not sure how to change it back without messing up categories. In Category: Propaganda, despite my objections on talk page, a user put a lot of important categories like Propaganda by country (11 C, 7 P), Propaganda by interest (5 C, 6 P), Propaganda by medium (13 C, 1 P) and Propaganda by war (4 C, 3 P) under a new and rather vague Category:Propaganda_examples which I think people will be less likely to look in to. Where to bring this issue? Or does someone in the know feel strongly enough to change it back correctly ? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all -
I've largely retured from the behind-the-scenes side of Wikipedia, and even when I was in full action here this would be a daunting task... so, I was wondering if someone more gung ho could take a look at the subcategories of Category:Culture by nationality and city. All the US cities are "Culture of Foo", all bar one of the UK ones are "Culture in Foo", the rest of the world is a mish-mash of the two plus "Foo culture". Surely there needs to be some kind of uniformity, but were looking at some 350 categories in all... Grutness... wha? 08:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that this entire series many have been emptied out of process. I don't have time to research this, but most of these categories are now up for speedy deletion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
G7 has gone in and out of the CFD Speedy criteria a few times. Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2010#Speedy rename with agreement of the category creator may have been the first suggestion. It was added to the criteria page on 1 May 2011; removed along with G4 on 29 May 2011; and re-added on 24 June 2012, all of which may have been without specific discussion.
It is somewhat anomalous that an editor can manually create a replacement category and tag his own work for instant deletion, but if he wants it to come to CFD (for somebody else or bot to do it), it has to wait 48 hours.
I propose that "G7: Author requests renaming" be removed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria, and replaced with C2E:
Moreover I propose to add a mention of C2E in the "no delay" paragraph at the top of WP:CFDS that covers the General WP:CSD such as "patent nonsense", so that it can be done instantly.
If the new C2E criteria are not met then a full CfD would be required. Comments? – Fayenatic L ondon 21:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Just following up on my exchange with MBisanz. I pointed out that his (her?) closure at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_1#Category:Hotels_by_year_of_completion has not been implemented. He replied that he didn't "know how to trigger the technical means to do the merge. You might ask somewhere like WT:CFD." Again, if it's just a backlog thing, no worries. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Category:Chinese multilingual support templates, Category:Japonic multilingual support templates, and Category:Korean name templates should be subcategories of Category:Multilingual support templates. Discussion is here. LittleBen ( talk) 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A large number of song and album categories have been listed at WP:CFD/S for renaming. In each case, the change adds disambiguation in accordance with the title of the article. In some cases, the change seems not just desirable but essential due to the ambiguous nature of the current title: e.g., Category:Ancient albums to Category:Ancient (band) albums. In other cases, the need for the change can be disputed due to a relative lack of ambiguity: e.g., Category:Cloven Hoof albums to Category:Cloven Hoof (band) albums.
A large number of such nominations have been opposed, but an equal number are currently in queue. Should they be processed or does the expressed opposition extend to them as well? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
When pressing the link to new discussions on
WP:CFD there used to be a note saying <!-- Paste {{subst:Cfd2|ObsoleteCategory|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}} for deletion, or {{subst:Cfm2|FromCategory|ToCategory|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}} for merging -->
or something like that. Why was that removed? I propose restoring that. It was very handy and helpful there.
Debresser (
talk) 17:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that Category:Social engineering (political science) is up for deletion/discussion, but the link leads me to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_19#Category:Social_engineering_.28political_science.29 where I cannot find it - where did it disappear to? Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the purpose of Category:Very large categories? (I typed a more detailed question before but Wikimedia Error wiped it out) Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In the process of changing category names according to set standards, according to WP:LUX, many categories will have to be renamed (possibly a hundred or more). Is there any specific procedure, or do they all have to be submitted? Thanks. Scotchorama ( talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
With Category:Athletics clubs in the United States as all the others of the kind. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 17:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Strategies for dealing with the two party system this is a recently created category, which seems a bit of a pointy response to discussion at Talk:Electoral fusion#See Also - Tax Choice. Not sure if it qualifies for deletion or if perhaps there might be some already existing similar category. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a discussion around this, but "Tributes to The Beatles" has been moved, I believe wrongly, to "Tributes to the Beatles". The band is called "The Beatles", not merely a collection of individuals known as "Beatles". Furthermore, rather ironically, the exampled of The Beatles is used to describe such a collection, as seen on the Project Page. Can this move be reverted please? -- rm 'w a vu 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't have done one for a year, & faithfully following the instructions still fucks it all up. No wonder only regulars ever venture to nominate here. Johnbod ( talk) 20:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any mechanism by which editors can be alerted when a page is added to a given category (something similar to watchlisting... but pegged to a category and not the individual page).
The issue is problematic categorization and verifiability... adding a potentially problematic cat to a bio article (especially, but not necessarily a BLP). For example, someone adding {{Category:Communists}} to a bio article. Sometimes this is an appropriate addition (when the person actually is/was a communist)... but I could also see this cat being added inappropriately (by POV vandals, etc.) Now, obviously, if this cat were added to a heavily watched article (say, Barak Obama) someone would quickly catch it and remove the cat. But we can not be sure this will happen for articles on more obscure people - articles that might not be on anyone's watchlist. The inappropriate categorization might not be caught for a long time. It would be helpful if there was a way for members of interested wikiprojects (such as WikiProject:Socialism) to watch a category... and to be alerted whenever that category is has been added to a page... so they could review the page and categorization, and ensure that the categorization was appropriate and verifiable. Blueboar ( talk) 14:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone has just changed the Category:Wendland to Category:Wendland (region) without a) informing me as the orginator and b) spotting that there is an RFM discussion currently ongoing to move the primary article from Wendland (region) to Wendland. If the move is approved, as seems likely, we're going to have to move the category back. I can't find the CFD proposal and resulting discussion - is it archived anywhere? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Look at these deletions unjustified: Category:Canadian male athletes and Category:Canadian female athletes, this revert and this message: «FYI, I tend to agree with your reasoning; it's purely the way you're going about implementing it to which I am opposed.» Nyttend. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 16:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone should close this actors discussion and this actresses discussion from November. I can't, because I commented on it. But someone should settle the issue. (Beyond those, this librettist discussion of mine is the only one remaining from November. It should also be closed.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 19 |
Would it be better if Category:Singles certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, Category:Singles certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, Category:Singles certified quadruple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and Category:Singles certified sextuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America be merged into one category entitled Category:Singles certified Multi-Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Are category redirects still within the scope of WP:CFD? Last time I checked, they were in the scope of CFD and not of WP:RFD. As category redirects still categorize things (and a bot will recategorize everything in one), it seems that they are still functioning categories, and unlike redirects of other namespaces, the RFDkeep reasons don't seem to apply to category redirects (such as typo-named categories, keeping names of categories as a redirects that were renamed, etc). Category redirects are not cheap, from my understanding of these things. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 10:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that a requirement be added to the WP:CFD page that category creators must be notified. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. This is not a vote. If it were, then deletionists would always win on these type of category deletionist/renamer talk pages. Some people initiating the category deletion/renames may not want the bother of notifying the category creators, because some category creators don't want to be notified. This is a bogus reason not to notify the category creators. I and many others believe that category creators should be notified.
People complain about the lack of participation in category discussions. Requiring notification would help for any type of category renaming or discussion. Getting complaints for notifying people comes with the work. Edit summaries are not a great way to notify category creators. The edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as "cfr rename" or "cfd" or "speedy" or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases. Also, many times there are later edits to clarify the deletion notice. So category creators may not ever see any notice of deletion, because later clarification edits may only say something like "clarify."
The root problem is the desire for speedy renames by some category deletionist/renamers. Almost anything that slows them down they try to do away with. They write the rules for the most part at pages such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. The associated talk pages are mostly a waste of time for someone like me, since they are populated mostly by fulltime category deletionist/renamers. That is why attempts to get notification of category creators goes nowhere.
Concerning speedy renames, it actually does not take any more time in the end if all category deletion/renames were done via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and eliminating speedy renames for the most part. It all rotates around to getting done. Doing speedy renames based on article names is going to cause many problems since categories don't always line up neatly with articles.
Notifying category creators does take some time. Maybe a bot could be created to notify category creators. If they were notified then Wikipedia would keep more people donating money. Many people stop donating to Wikipedia due to deletions, and especially speedy deletions. Deletions in general, not just categories. See:
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline - ignore the closer comment that insults people's motivations. It may take some reading to understand that discussion. But notice that other people soon joined in discussing their problems related to deletions, especially speedy deletions. Many people have discussed the problem of non-admin closes of category discussions. Per WP:NAC. Just like speedy renames, both are resolved incorrectly if done without unambiguous consensus. Requiring notification, getting rid of speedy deletions, and banning non-admin closes would go a long way towards stopping the abuse, the mistakes, and the lack of accountability. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I love this: "Wikiprojects are just clubs of users who work together—nothing more." Well, so are deletionist/renamers. By the way, that is not an insult, nor meant as an insult. It is an accurate description of what is being done. The fact that some rude, smug, abusive, or speedy deletionists are despised, does not make all deletionists rude, nor despised. I delete/rename/create categories all the time on the Commons. Hundreds of them.
I observe that Good Ol’factory and some others here have ignored my point that edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as "cfr rename" or "cfd" or "speedy" or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases. Also, many times there are later edits to clarify the deletion notice. So category creators may not ever see any notice of deletion, because later clarification edits may only say something like "clarify." So watchlisting alone is not the solution. The deletionist/renamers need to notify people.
I suggest you create a bot to do it. Then the bot talk page can get any nasty replies. Notifying wikiprojects is helpful, but many wikiproject members don't check wikiproject pages daily, or even weekly. Many wikiprojects go through phases of involvement by its members.
The only sure way is to notify category creators on their talk page. It is easy to create a {{cfd notify}} template to paste onto talk pages. That template should say that notification is required, and if they don't want to be notified they need to put a one-sentence {{no cfd notify}} tag at the top of their page. The {{cfd notify}} template should also link to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion so people can discuss notification. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Here are some userboxes. It is too much to expect many category workers to give a damn. One thing that may change things over time is community understanding, and support for change. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it seem reasonable to notify the nominator of contested speedy nominations? The speedy page gets so many updates and I don't review them all, but I'd really like to know when my own nominations are contested. Since the majority of these nominations are completed without opposition, such notification seems like a reasonable burden to put on those who oppose the nominations. – Pnm ( talk) 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has voiced a concern or objection regarding your nomination to speedily rename Category:Foo to Category:Bar. Your thoughts, if you would like to share them, would be appreciated at the category's entry on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy page.
With the goal of encouraging more longtime CfD editors to become admins, I've nominated User:Fayenatic london for adminship. If you have opinions on this request, please add them on the RfA page. Thanks!-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
A requirement should be added to the WP:CFD page that Wikiprojects must be notified when a related category is proposed for modification or deletion. This would be a duty of the nominator at the time of nomination.
Rationale: By contacting the Project talk page it is more likely that Project editors (who will often know the subject in hand far better than the nominator) will be aware of the change and familiarise themselves with the impact of the change. Placing this administrative burden on the CfD nominator will reduce the disruption that contentious or poorly thought-through CfD nominations cause. By making the nominator think about the relevant Project, it will improve the quality of the CfD proposal.
Tendentious nominations are the category world's equivalent of 3RR but are never censured. An earlier proposal to notify category creators met no consensus, but it raised the idea of notifying Projects when a CfD proposal came about. This has got a lot of merit. The CfD process has been abused for some time by full-time CfD editors. They repeatedly submit categories for renaming or deletion, in the full knowledge that it was previously contentious, while avoiding notifying previous participants in the earlier CfD (whose logical arguments caused a similar proposal to be rejected.) (Per Timeshifter writing here on 7 December 2011: The root problem is the desire for speedy renames by some category deletionist/renamers. Almost anything that slows them down they try to do away with.) IME requests to the nominator to contact parties with an interest in the topic are mostly ignored. When I have had the time to do it myself I have been accused of canvassing! This rudeness causes ill-will. When some of these changes are rejected the nominator may wait for a few months, then try to resubmit the offending categories piecemeal or in small groups which can slip in 'under the radar'. They then claim it as a "standard" to set as a precedent for rolling out those other changes. This sneaky behaviour forces editors away from editing to keep an eye on changes being proposed at CfD. Ephebi ( talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is general agreement here that notification of WikiProjects is usually a Good Thing™, and should be encouraged. I share that view, and also share the reservation that it is not always appropriate.
However, the usability of our current notification mechanisms is abysmal: the {{ cfd-notify}}cannot cope effectively with group nominations, and breaks entirely when the section heading of the group nomination is not a category name. Even for simple nominations, {{ cfd-notify}} is cumbersome, requiring lots of parameters which need checking ... and when it is done, we do not have a template for recording the notification in the discussion (some equivalent to {{ delsort}}).
So my initial intention here was propose a drive to improve the usability of the notification templates, and to work with the developers of WP:TWINKLE to incorporate them into Twinkle. My idea was that if there was a WikiProjects-to-notify facility in Twinkle, then the script could automate the whole thing in a neutral and transparent way. No hassle, much more notices.
But the more I look at this, the more I think that any such mechanism is reinventing the wheel. We already have the Article alerts system, a hugely-sophisticated and customisable machine which automatically builds project-based lists of all XfDs. Why duplicate that work by spamming talk pages?
It seems to me that there are three things to be done to improve the ability of Article Alerts to generate awareness of CfD discussions:
That turns some of the onus over to WikiProjects to be more proactive in taking steps to increase their awareness of XfDs, which seems to me to be a Good Thing™ because it leaves projects free to decide how much they want to engage with XfD. The alternatives, of posting directly to the project's talk pages, look very spammy by comparison. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is at least causing some confusion eg Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_15#Category:Categories_named_after_companies_by_industry, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Eponymous_categories There doesn't seem to be a method for just discussion so I brought this here.
Question : is it right that subcategories of Category:Eponymous categories - specifically those that are of the form "Categories named after" should be labelled Template:Hidden category (obviously excluding ctageories that are not tracking or maintence categories - ie Category:Arab Spring ? Mddkpp ( talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like clarification for the procedures of opposed "speedy moves". Not being a usual frequenter of category questions, I am not sure how these work. But a category I created was nominated for speedy move two days ago. I opposed it [7], and the discussion continued thereafter [8], etc. But the category was moved nonetheless today. I had understood opposed category moves would be reclassified for longer discussion and not be maintained on schedule for speedy moves. I know RMs have seven days of discussion, so I thought something like that was going to happen here, and took time prepare my a more elaborate reply, including various alternative proposals to moving, only to find that it was moved already today. Is this procedurally correct? What is exactly the timetable for these things? Walrasiad ( talk) 20:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy are not clear about what to do when a speedy renaming is contested.
Current practice is that when a listed category is contested, the entry is moved down the page the to a holding area, where some discussion may follow. However, the instructions are unclear about what should happen next. They currently read: Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.
My reading of this has always been that if any objection is sustained, the renaming cannot proceed through the speedy process. To my mind, this accords with the general principle that a speedy process (such as speedy deletion) is reserved for uncontroversial issues where there is an assumption of consensus for the action. However, another admin recently read it as allowing admin discretion in assesing the objection and any comments made in response to the objection.
I see three options here:
My preference is for option 2. I suggest that the guidance be changed to say something to the effect of:
Any thoughts? Ideas? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since an RFC proposal is supposed to be brief, this seems like the place to set out in more detail why I support a clear restriction on continuing with a renaming in the case of a sustained objection.
One concern I can see about allowing an objector to simply block a speedy renaming is that this power may be abused, by frivolous or vexatious objections. I am quite sure that there will indeed be some frivolous or vexatious objections, but we have dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with that sort of thing, and if any editor persistently abuses the process by contesting speedies which are upheld at CFD it will amount to tendentious editing. The community has mechanisms for dealing with tendentious editing wherever it occurs, so there is no specific need to lock down this procedure to prevent it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that all Washington categorized topics use Washington (state) instead of just Washington. In categories such as Category:Companies based in Washington (state), the disambiguation is unnecessary. The only other possible search term is Category:Companies based in Washington, D.C. which is a natural disambiguation. I see that there was a discussion back in 2008, but per WP:PRECISE, shouldn't the disambiguations be removed? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the template populates a category, dropping a note here.
Also, could anyone clueful take a look at Template:tfd? Unlike Template:cfd (et al) it apparently merely links to the WP:TFD page and not to the specific log page in question. It was annoying trying to get to the actual discussion for this (especially since the discussion was relisted : )
Would be nice if it had at least the functionality of the cfd/cfr/cfm templates to link directly to the log page in question. Thanks : ) - jc37 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you lok at the subcats of the subcats, most do not specify Wikipedia articles....
I would like to suggest that any cat starting with the phrase Articles with should be considered enough to consider it a project category. Other such words are Wikipedia, Wikipedian, WikiProject, Wikiquote, etc. (Note that if we force renames on all these, my read is that some bots may need adjusting.)
Otherwise, all of these probably need to come up for renaming. Is there a speedy criteria that would cover this directly? (B2?) And if not, why not? - jc37 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested. - jc37 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone do the requsite tagging for the subcategories of Category:Anime by year of first release and Category:Manga by year of first release. — Dispenser 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Code | Result |
---|---|
{{ User Catbox}} |
I have found this useful for my userpage. Thought I would share : ) - jc37 01:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, just about every biography article of a deceased subject matter categorizes them by how they died. And how someone dies can certainly be notable. For an obvious example, assassination victims are often partly notable for how they died. On the other end of the spectrum, how could dying from a lightning strike possibly influence how you lived your life (short of not golfing in the rain)? There are certainly more nuanced examples in between those two extremes that we would disagree on.
I think the universal application of cause of death is largely a source bias of using obituaries rather than a real consensus that we should make Wikipedia a morbidity report, WP:NOT. I would like to establish a concensus that not every biography needs a cause of death cat. That would allow us to consider individual nominations for deletion on their own merits without falling back to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
What do other editors think? RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have modified the wording of speedy renaming criterion C2.D to clarify that it can apply only to topic categories. Only a topic category can have an 'eponymous article'. The title of a set category will differ from the title of its 'main' article due to plurality – e.g., Economist (singular) and Category:Economists (plural) – or list naming, e.g., List of economists.
What prompted me to make this change was the continuing presence of speedy renaming nominations that involve changing a topic category into a set category, or vice versa. Such changes are, in many cases, reasonable, but they are not the unambiguous and uncontroversial changes for which speedy renaming is reserved. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In the last several days there have been many CFDs for occupational categories where the people in question gained notability through some other means. For example, Category:House painters contains five members: two union activists, two politicians, and a fellow who tried to assassinate Andrew Jackson. The CFD entry for this category is generating a lot of discussion, and there are at least a dozen other similar discussions underway at the moment, with a lot of other candidate categories waiting in the wings. Some of these categories can be dealt with simply because they are small and because there are parents waiting to receive them, but often enough these categories present the same issue I've described here (for example, Jesus is a member of Category:Carpenters). The problem is exacerbated by various people who drifted from occupation to occupation (e.g. Thomas Lavy, who worked as an electrician among several types of jobs) and who get listed under each.
My personal opinion is that in general these categorizations come under trivial characteristics or intersection. I would prefer that people be categorized under the work that made them famous. The occupational connection between Jesus and Harrison Ford is largely trivia, even if for the latter carpentry did provide an in with George Lucas and meant that he didn't have to fake his work in Witness. I recognize for the union activists and politicians that there is frequently a direct line from their initial occupation to their political activity, but it still seems to me, when it comes down to it, that Samuel Gompers could well have been a plumber or any other skilled tradesman instead of rolling cigars.
At any rate, there are as I said a number of these discussions, and it seemed to me better to establish a general principle here rather than repeating much of the same argument over and over again. Mangoe ( talk) 19:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm torn on this issue. What I want to see achieved is consistency. The two ways I see to achieve this is to 1) allow all these occupation categories to exist or 2) delete the ones that do not have any worthwhile purpose and aggressively maintain the others. The problem with option 1 is that it goes against existing policies such as overcat while option 2 means that a lot of time and effort is required from a lot of editors to maintain consistency. If categories such as Foo lawyers remain for notable lawyers then well meaning editors are going to add every sportsperson or politician who is also a lawyer, to achieve consistency this type of categorisation would have to be patrolled, otherwise there is justification for Foo plumber for every sportsperson or politician who is also a plumber. Mattlore ( talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to side track this discussion, but, setting aside the subjectivity of "famous", why do we need to categorise people by occupation anyway? What harm would we be causing to navigation if this entire tree was gone? - jc37 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a degree to which I am sympathetic to arguments being applied to Samuel Gompers; I am willing to accept the principle that, for labor leaders and perhaps some other groups, the other occupation is significant, and thus for example I could be persuaded that a "labor leader by occupation" category tree might be appropriate. However, I continue to disbelieve that the secondary employment of rugby players and murderers is significant, and I have considerable doubts about that of politicians. I'm likewise dubious about categorizing every job of those who took a while to work out their proper vocation. Therefore while I still would prefer as an overarching principle that people not be categorized under occupations in which they were not notable, I would also admit the possibility of working out certain field-specific exceptions in which people notable in one field would be categorized under that field according to secondary occupations. Mangoe ( talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that only those occupations in which people create a work which is presented/published, should be categorised. (I'll reluctantly agree to celebrities as well...)
To use housepainters as an example. People typically do not have news articles written about them for being good housepainters. (A human interest story being a possible exception.) The reason, or even the cause célèbre, is typically for something else.
So with that in mind, I'd like help assembling a list of what would fall under that criteria. And of course there already exists some criteria for certain inclusions (such as for criminals).
Each page linked below has on it a list of "subtypes" of occupations which would fall under this heading.
Can anyone think of any others which should be categorised based upon the criteria I set out above? - jc37 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read all of the above comments (it's a pile-up), but I'm putting in my two cents' worth just the same. So which question are we debating here?: (1) Whether or not to eliminate occupations as categories, period; or (2) Whether or not to remove these categories from biographies that list them incidentally? My opinion on #1, is keep the occupations as categories, even the trades ("blue collar" jobs). "Carpenters" could be included in articles about historical periods, union activity, engineering and economic developments, labour migration, to name a few. Aside from being used for articles on broad topics, yes, I can see the occupation categories being used for notable people who worked in a trade as a main occupation -- see Thomas Crapper, who is in category "Plumbers". There may not be tons of biographies like that, but so what, it ain't any less valid. Now as for debate #2, whether or not to remove them from biographies where they are just incidental information -- say, Harrison Ford, who was a carpenter at one point -- I'd say remove them, because the point of the categories is to facilitate searching I believe, and clogging up the category with trivia references is counter-productive, similar to how editors had started adding "pop culture references" to the bottom of many articles, and those ended up being cleaned up and removed... WP should focus on notability and not trivia, and my view is that Harrison Ford's former occupation as a carpenter is, however interesting, still trivia. OttawaAC ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categorisation_of_content_and_project_pages - jc37 01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
D. A rename instating concordance of category and article naming. - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
I found this wording inscrutable and had to look up "instate" to be sure what it meant ("install" appears to be the closest synonym). Paired with "concordance" it produces an obfuscated phrase that calls for a copy edit. My attempt, "maintaining concordance", was reverted because it has the undesirable interpretation that the category might previously been in concord with its article name which the current wording avoids. I'd welcome any suggestions that allow the less erudite among us to understand this guidance. Perhaps:
D. A rename unifying category and article naming.
Joja lozzo 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#How_to_use_Cfd is really complicated. Does anyone really follow it?
The following guidance is much easier:
Why is there no mention of Twinkle currently? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to a nomination today, I wonder if deletion of category redirects should be a speedy deletion nomination or does each require a full discussion? These should be empty but {{ db-c1}} should not apply to these. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of this one. could you please delete the first one? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 09:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see my note here. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently, category-related discussions tend to be spread out over the talkpages of WP:CFD; WP:CAT, WP:NCCAT; WP:CLS; and elsewhere. Awhile back, it seemed to me that having a category-related noticeboard might be nice, so I cobbled one together. Recently, some helpful person added a notice on WP:CAT about it. So at this point, I welcome others' thoughts on this. What do you think about it, and if positive, how and where do you think we should notify others of its existence? - jc37 06:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Terminology. Please advise if it needs moving here. Spinning Spark 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help to put the articles from Category:Clock towers in the United States into the state specific categories? Royaume du Maroc ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the wording of Speedy renaming criterion C2D is a little too loose, insofar as it affects primary topics.
There is no stable consensus on whether category names should match article titles in cases where those article titles are ambiguous, but have been deemed to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In full CFD discussions, the outcome can go either way, and the closest I can devise to a neutral summary of the consensus of recent discussions is that editors apply a stricter interpretation of "primary topic" in category space than in article space. How much stricter seems to vary (and I am usually on the very strict side of any argument) ... but this is a glaring exception to the general rule that speedy renamings should be uncontroversial.
C2D currently reads:
The issue arose at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 24#Category:Monmouth.2C_Wales, so prompted by Oculi's suggestion there I propose to add a third bullet point:
Note that my proposal goes slightly further than Oculi's suggestion; the hatnote-related part of the proposal is my idea, but I think it keeps to the spirit of Oculi's suggestion.
Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:01, 24 May 2012 (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.
For now, I think I would suggest something like:
I think that this does what is being suggested above. And should clear up at least some confusion. Alternate proposals welcome. - jc37 14:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Updated Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria. - jc37 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Somebody has reorganized the sub-categories under Category:Bridges by century into individual years going back to before the current era, so that there are now a great many categories with only one article each, and very little likelihood of any additional members. In earlier centuries, there may be only a few years in which any (now verifiable) bridge was built, but each such year now has its own category. This seems to be extreme over-categorization. As I am very rarely (if ever) involved in discussions here, I am asking for guidance on how to approach this. -- Donald Albury 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
We are currently discussing the possibility of moving stub type discussions into categories for discussion (as well as other venues). Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know about Category:Disestablishments in the United States by year? Seems like these are starting to be nominated for speedy deletion as empty. Were they emptied out of process? Should they be populated? Do we need this tree? No matter what, I don't see a reason to keep the by decade categories in this tree. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Police brutality in England is now being discussed at two separate concurrent CfDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_31#Category:Police_brutality_in_England and a group nom at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 1#Police brutality]].
Can an uninvolved admin please try to unravel this? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk now is going on at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion as to whether we no longer need SfD and whether the category and template stub tasks should be given back to CfD or given to MfD. Please post your thoughts there. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Culture by city has no consistent formula with Culture in/of city and city culture all in use. I wonder what people's initial thoughts are before nominating, also can we got a bot to tag everything (there over 200 categories when you include Category:Culture by nationality and city). Tim! ( talk) 08:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed Category:Mosques in Hamburg listed as DB-c1. In looking at that it appears to have been emptied out of process. I repopulated a few categories. I guess the question here is do we want to support mosques by city or other subdivisions? Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
One side effect of moving stub discussions on templates over here is illustrated by the look of John O'Neil (painter) where the category renaming template is splashed on the article page. In this case, the information in the box is wrong since we are not proposing to rename the category just merge the templates. Not sure how this needs to be addressed, but we need a solution sooner rather then later. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that SFD has been closed, and discussions are to be moved here, we need to discuss how to implement that.
I have just closed a bunch of stub templates nominated at today's CFD, because CFD is for categories not templates. How exactly do we want to structure and format stub discussions here? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Message left at WT:SFD pointing to this discussion. Bencherlite Talk 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
From a brief perusal of the SFD talk page (not having been involved at all with SFD during its life) it seems that the question you raise, of whether CFD should handle stub categories and TFD should handle stub templates, has already been answered very recently with the consensus view that discussion of both types should be kept together and that the new venue for both should be CFD. If the problem is that some of the nominations say "category:X stub" when they should say "template:X stub", that can be easily sorted I hope. At the moment, if everyone else at CFD follows your example and refuses to accept stub templates for discussion or deletion at CFD, then it's difficult to see what people are meant to do - they're simply following the instructions at SFD and TFD and coming here! Bencherlite Talk 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that if a nomination does not involve any deletion or rename of any category, then the nomination does not belong at CfD. If the nomination does involve deletion or rename of any category, then the category needs to lead the nomination. Is there a problem with that? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't have a problem with the idea of discussing templates at CfD. (I've often though that navboxes and lists should be discussed at cfd due to similar usage - see WP:CLS.) - jc37 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me why Cydebot ( talk · contribs · logs) is deleting hundreds of these redirects? I can't find them listed at WP:CFD/W and the large majority that I checked had never been tagged for CfD and were not listed at the log page that is being referenced by Cydebot in the deletion log. What am I missing? Jenks24 ( talk) 00:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion was back in April but it was agreed then to not implement it until today. Because there were so many of them they were listed on the Working/Large page for big jobs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Should Canis Resort be categorized as a hotel? While it is a hotel, that category is for facilities used by people, right? Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's nice that the three stub discussions on June 13 CFD page surrounding a discussion on Superfund sites in New Jersey, because that ironically parallels the decision to close the poorly attended WP:SFD and dump the contents onto CFD without there first being a discussion on the CFD talk page itself. There's no problem with moving stub categories over here, but there's no mechanism for closing and implementing discussions stub-based discussions here. WP:CFDW doesn't have spaces to handle them; Cydebot is not set up for them; and editors on CFD don't know how to close them (or at least I don't). And it's also completely illogical that a stub is treated like a category, since, well, it isn't one. If discussions like the ones on June 13 are to be closed, these procedures need to be put into place, or some new Superfund site needs to be found. Meantime, I'm closing all of them as no consensus pending the implementation of some way to handle it.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kinda too late now, but I noticed that all F.C. Internazionale Milano categories have been renamed to Inter Milan per C2D. If you look at the Talk:Inter Milan, you'll find out that it's not exatcly "longstanding stability at at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename". Mentoz86 ( talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that category: Men Nurses has been deleted and replaced by Category:Male nurses. Was there a discussion about this? - If so how do I find it? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
One of my recent category edits has been re-directed by a bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Marie_Curie&diff=511351103&oldid=511333713 to a category that is inappropriate for this article. What can be done? Is this the right place to post such questions? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
On the English WP, there are 200 dufferent French "grandes écoles".
50% of them are self-proclaimed "grandes écoles" ; the appellation "grandes écoles", as already said above, is not protected by law.
During the telecom boom, dozens of "opportunistic" telecom engineering schools were created ; they all had very similar names : how many different names can you give to a school which trains future telecom engineers ?
Some engineering schools have very long and boring names ; they are mainly known by their acronym, or by a nickname, like NATO, NASA, or FBI.
You have Supélec = École supérieure d'électricité
Supaéro = École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace nowadays merged into ISAE = Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace
Supaéro also had an acronym ENSAE, but this acronym was shared by another school : École nationale de la statistique et de l'administration économique located in Paris.
The following example is particularly demonstrative :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENSEEIHT
da:ENSEEIHT
es:ENSEEIHT
fr:École nationale supérieure d'électrotechnique, d'électronique, d'informatique, d'hydraulique et des télécommunications
is:ENSEEIHT
it:ENSEEIHT
ru:Высшая государственная школа электротехники, электроники, информатики, гидравлики и телекоммуникаций
zh:国立高等电力技术、电子学、计算机、水力学与电信学校
No French native knowing the school would be able to pronounce the name ; they would know the acronym without knowing for what words or conceps the letters stand for.
If you see ENSEEIHT, Toulouse, you very quickly get the information ; you know that it is kind of engineering school situated in Toulouse ; easy to pronounce.
The pronounciation of the acronym would be similar to ENSET, Ecole normale supérieure de l'enseignement technique, situated in Cachan, (ENSET, Cachan).
If you look at the electronics engineering schools, it is even more confusing !
Therefore, I propose following conventions :
Full name with French spelling (acronym or nickname, town, country code in case of doubt).
This convention would make the list of French grandes écoles much clearer, quicker to read and to pronounce.
All above examples would now result in :
École supérieure d'électricité (Supélec, Gif-sur-Yvette)
Ecole normale supérieure de l'enseignement technique (ENSET, Cachan)
Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE, Toulouse)
and last, but not least, a monstrous long name for a not-so-famous engineering school :
Be careful with the French spelling !
In a long name, there is only one upper case letter for the first word (except of course for proper nouns).
Euroflux ( talk) 19:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
... Looking at this, I think something should be done, but I'm not quite sure what. Any ideas? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
-- 194.127.8.18 ( talk) 11:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Euroflux has not been unblocked on the French WP, but is still indeffed there. I tried to explain at length (see my talk page) to this editor what is wrong with his proposed category names (and article moves), but "he's right" and continues adding these categories to articles. I've undone most of his article moves, but haven't even started at the categories mess (in addition to the addition of improperly named cats, several existing cats have been emptied and any text replaced with "to be removed" outside of the normal CFD procedures). Like The Bushranger, I'm not quite sure what should/can be done. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 15:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Euroflux keeps missing the point. I have never claimed that the cats that I reinstated should remain, only that he should follow proper procedure if he thinks they should be removed. And he keeps ignoring the faulty cats that he created and added to many articles. Not to mention weird sortkeys like exclamation marks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 20:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Guillaume2303 keeps saying that my categories are faulty but he did not give any justification ! Her is my categorizing tree:
This category contains French Grandes écoles, with following subcategories:
The original category "Grandes écoles" was a real mess with all kinds of various "grandes écoles" in so many different fields : science, engineering, business, arts, cinema...
It made no sense !! Again and again, the name " grande école" is not protected by law and any weird school can call themselves "grande école"...
That is why I began sorting out those schools.
The most typically French "grandes écoles" are the Engineering schools like Polytechnique (nothing to do with Institut national polytechnique !!), Centrale, les Mines, les Ponts, etc.... ordered according to a certain hierarchy.
Even more selective than the prestigious engineering schools are the " Ecoles normales" dedicated to mathematics, physics, but as well literature, philosophy, biology, social sciences, etc... Those "écoles normales" train top level scientists, professors, and intellectuals as well.
A special category is then dedicated to économists. A typical French characteristics is that most French renowned economists were originally engineers, alumni of Ecole polytechnique ( Groupe X-Crise,...), les Mines (Nobel Prize Maurice Allais,...), les Ponts(bridge engineers), ENSAE ( Alfred Sauvy,...), ENAC ( Jean Peyrelevade,..)
A fourth category is dedicated to agronomists, biotechnologists & veterinarians... this category is nowadays very important due to the growing importance of biotechnolgy ; there has been a recent merging between aa agronomic school and a vet school.
A fifth category is dedicated to an already existing Category:Business schools in France". This category is much less typically french since French business schools very much copy the US system. The French business schools do not have such a long tradition like their engineering counterparts and are not public, but private, which shows that the French government has long neglected business training, due to the influence of the Catholic religion.
The sixth category is dedicated to those grandes écoles dedicated to training politicians and civil servants. There is the famous - but recent - Ecole nationale d'administration (ENA) created just after the War (1945) by General de Gaulle to democratize the French administration and to get rid of the "Collaboration" spirit with the Germans. There is the relatively renowned Institut d'études politiques ( Sciences Po). This last category is a kind of "copycat" of the French engineer schools. Sciences Po is hardly considered a " grande école" because they recruit just after baccalauréat with not such a tough competitive exam.
The ENA system is a very new one, and reached its peak under Georges Pompidou presidency. The ENA system is now crumbling down due to the growing importance of Europe. Contrary to engineers, who are a worldwide globalized profession, the French civil servant concept will hardly survive in a global world.
Among the 6 categories, the richest one is obviously the category "Grandes écoles for engineers".
In France, when we say "grandes écoles", it is often understated "grandes écoles d'ingénieurs" (Grandes écoles for engineers). Euroflux ( talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
{unindent} here is the description of the Category:Grandes écoles (French engineers) Category:Grandes écoles (French engineers)
Subcategories
This category has the following 6 subcategories, out of 6 total.
► Grandes écoles (French mechanical & civil engineers, materials scientists) (4 C, 14 P) ► Grandes écoles (French mining & nuclear engineers) (9 P) ► Grandes écoles (French aerospace engineers) (2 C, 5 P) ► Grandes écoles (French military engineers) (1 C, 5 P) ► Grandes écoles (French electrical & electronics engineers, computer scientists) (1 C, 16 P) ► Grandes écoles (French physical & chemical engineers) (1 C, 10 P)
Pages in category "Grandes écoles (French engineers)"
The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
Conference of the Directors of French Engineering Schools Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur
Categories:
Grandes écoles French engineers
If you speak of French "grandes écoles" 80% of them train engineers. On the English WP there were 120 of them + probably others not yet identified.
" Grandes écoles" is a touchy subject. There is no official definition of "grandes écoles" and there might be some disagreement about whether a school A is "Grande école" or not. The school A might present themselves as a "grande école" whereas others might consider it as a "petite école". In France, there are endless ideological debates about the suppression of "grandes écoles" in favour of Universities.
Every year there is a ranking by the professional sector ; the "grandes écoles d'ingénieurs" (Grandes écoles for engineers) are split into 3 catégories : A, B, C. The "real" grandes écoles are in fact the A + one part of the B, but hush hush ! Do not hurt egos ! On the French WP there has been a bloody war about a new engineering school named fr:Institut polytechnique des sciences avancées. This is a new school, hardly recognized as an engineering school. They added the word "polytechnique" to their name because fr:Ecole polytechnique is the most prestigious engineering school in France ; it is a kind of advertising trick !
Some wanted to suppress this school out of ideological considerations because it was "private", or not enough recognized, etc... Some students of this school harshly defended their school, which is rather understandable, and they were blocked ! It was long before my arrival. I got suspected of being a sockpuppet of those students which explains why I was blocked.
I made a classification according to the specialty and to the industry, taking into account the French tradition.
Most French top engineering schools ( Polytechnique, Centrale Paris, Mines, Ponts) call themselves "généralistes" : their engineers should theoretically able to understand "everything". In reality, due to French tradition, there is a strong bias towards mathematics and mechanical engineering, which is inherited from the 19th century. Electrical engineering is a bit "parent pauvre" (poor parent). Polytechnique, Mines, Ponts trained top civil servants who directed french administrations especially regarding mining, industry, infrastructures, nuclear,...
The top school for Electrical engineering is " Supélec", École Supérieure d'Électricité. This is an "A" school, but less renowned than the former ones. Amazingly enough, "Supélec" is NOT an "école nationale", which shows that the French government traditionally underestiamted the importance of electricity.
An important branch of electrical engineering is telecommunications but if you look at the history of Télécom ParisTech you can see that the setting up of this school in France was rather laborious !
As a result of minor interest of the French State for Electrical engineering, there are a huge amount of private electrical, electronics and telecom schools. Due to the recent explosion of the telecom sector since 20 years, there has been many new "opportunistic" private telecom schools created.
The most prestigious technical corps in France is the fr:Corps des mines, fr:X-Mines, Polytechnique + Ecole des Mines. Those civil servants have headed France especially since the end of WWII. The mining schools are competent for metallurgy, nuclear sector, the whole industry sector ; they trained as well excellent economists, among them a Nobel prize ( Maurice Allais).
Aerospace has been a great priority in France especially during the last 50 years. Therefore there are quite a few establishments for this sector : Polytechnique, Supaéro, Centrale,...
Contrary to Germany, France has never been so keen on chemistry. This lack of interest is reflected by the relative anonymity of the French schools for chemical engineers or chemists. Concerning physics and chemistry, it is rather unclear whether it belongs to "engineering" (grandes écoles) or to "science" (University). There are quite a few chemistry + physics schools which are not so much renowned.
I have added " materials scientists" to " mechanical engineers", which is the case in the Aerospace industry. This is debatable ; they might be added as well to "chemists".
"Military engineers" ( IA, IETA, IETTM,...) deserve a special category due to French tradition. They have a complete different status and prestige than their counterparts in other countries like the US, UK, Germany... The top engineering school Ecole polytechnique is a military school and has trained up to 60 "Military engineers" per year (the other ones going into the civilian area). " Supaéro" ( ISAE), ENSTA ParisTech, ENSICA, ENSIETA (now ENSTA Bretagne) depend directly from the French DOD. Both schools training the officers of the French Navy and of the Air Force are as well "engineering" schools. Euroflux ( talk) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
{Unindent} Who are you and what do you want exactly ? You are not the "people" ; you are the only user making a fuss about this categorizing. Again and again my cartegory "Grandes écoles (French engineers)" is NOT misleading ; evrybody except you understands that this a category containing grandes écoles training French engineers. I am not the one who created the overall category "Grandes écoles" ; I would have created "French grandes écoles" beacause the system is typically French ; it is important for me to put the word "French" because this is the French system and french grandes écoles have been created to mainly train French engineers... didn't they ? Why are you hairsplitting ? and what do you propose concretely ? And what do you know about the system of French grandes écoles ? Euroflux ( talk) 17:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Grandes écoles (French scientists & intellectuals) and others in Category:Grandes écoles have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
I have a suggestion, categories that have been held in backlog for longer than 1 week be relisted. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this, since I'm not sure how to change it back without messing up categories. In Category: Propaganda, despite my objections on talk page, a user put a lot of important categories like Propaganda by country (11 C, 7 P), Propaganda by interest (5 C, 6 P), Propaganda by medium (13 C, 1 P) and Propaganda by war (4 C, 3 P) under a new and rather vague Category:Propaganda_examples which I think people will be less likely to look in to. Where to bring this issue? Or does someone in the know feel strongly enough to change it back correctly ? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all -
I've largely retured from the behind-the-scenes side of Wikipedia, and even when I was in full action here this would be a daunting task... so, I was wondering if someone more gung ho could take a look at the subcategories of Category:Culture by nationality and city. All the US cities are "Culture of Foo", all bar one of the UK ones are "Culture in Foo", the rest of the world is a mish-mash of the two plus "Foo culture". Surely there needs to be some kind of uniformity, but were looking at some 350 categories in all... Grutness... wha? 08:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that this entire series many have been emptied out of process. I don't have time to research this, but most of these categories are now up for speedy deletion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
G7 has gone in and out of the CFD Speedy criteria a few times. Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2010#Speedy rename with agreement of the category creator may have been the first suggestion. It was added to the criteria page on 1 May 2011; removed along with G4 on 29 May 2011; and re-added on 24 June 2012, all of which may have been without specific discussion.
It is somewhat anomalous that an editor can manually create a replacement category and tag his own work for instant deletion, but if he wants it to come to CFD (for somebody else or bot to do it), it has to wait 48 hours.
I propose that "G7: Author requests renaming" be removed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria, and replaced with C2E:
Moreover I propose to add a mention of C2E in the "no delay" paragraph at the top of WP:CFDS that covers the General WP:CSD such as "patent nonsense", so that it can be done instantly.
If the new C2E criteria are not met then a full CfD would be required. Comments? – Fayenatic L ondon 21:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Just following up on my exchange with MBisanz. I pointed out that his (her?) closure at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_1#Category:Hotels_by_year_of_completion has not been implemented. He replied that he didn't "know how to trigger the technical means to do the merge. You might ask somewhere like WT:CFD." Again, if it's just a backlog thing, no worries. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Category:Chinese multilingual support templates, Category:Japonic multilingual support templates, and Category:Korean name templates should be subcategories of Category:Multilingual support templates. Discussion is here. LittleBen ( talk) 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A large number of song and album categories have been listed at WP:CFD/S for renaming. In each case, the change adds disambiguation in accordance with the title of the article. In some cases, the change seems not just desirable but essential due to the ambiguous nature of the current title: e.g., Category:Ancient albums to Category:Ancient (band) albums. In other cases, the need for the change can be disputed due to a relative lack of ambiguity: e.g., Category:Cloven Hoof albums to Category:Cloven Hoof (band) albums.
A large number of such nominations have been opposed, but an equal number are currently in queue. Should they be processed or does the expressed opposition extend to them as well? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
When pressing the link to new discussions on
WP:CFD there used to be a note saying <!-- Paste {{subst:Cfd2|ObsoleteCategory|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}} for deletion, or {{subst:Cfm2|FromCategory|ToCategory|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}} for merging -->
or something like that. Why was that removed? I propose restoring that. It was very handy and helpful there.
Debresser (
talk) 17:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that Category:Social engineering (political science) is up for deletion/discussion, but the link leads me to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_19#Category:Social_engineering_.28political_science.29 where I cannot find it - where did it disappear to? Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the purpose of Category:Very large categories? (I typed a more detailed question before but Wikimedia Error wiped it out) Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In the process of changing category names according to set standards, according to WP:LUX, many categories will have to be renamed (possibly a hundred or more). Is there any specific procedure, or do they all have to be submitted? Thanks. Scotchorama ( talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
With Category:Athletics clubs in the United States as all the others of the kind. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 17:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Strategies for dealing with the two party system this is a recently created category, which seems a bit of a pointy response to discussion at Talk:Electoral fusion#See Also - Tax Choice. Not sure if it qualifies for deletion or if perhaps there might be some already existing similar category. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a discussion around this, but "Tributes to The Beatles" has been moved, I believe wrongly, to "Tributes to the Beatles". The band is called "The Beatles", not merely a collection of individuals known as "Beatles". Furthermore, rather ironically, the exampled of The Beatles is used to describe such a collection, as seen on the Project Page. Can this move be reverted please? -- rm 'w a vu 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't have done one for a year, & faithfully following the instructions still fucks it all up. No wonder only regulars ever venture to nominate here. Johnbod ( talk) 20:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any mechanism by which editors can be alerted when a page is added to a given category (something similar to watchlisting... but pegged to a category and not the individual page).
The issue is problematic categorization and verifiability... adding a potentially problematic cat to a bio article (especially, but not necessarily a BLP). For example, someone adding {{Category:Communists}} to a bio article. Sometimes this is an appropriate addition (when the person actually is/was a communist)... but I could also see this cat being added inappropriately (by POV vandals, etc.) Now, obviously, if this cat were added to a heavily watched article (say, Barak Obama) someone would quickly catch it and remove the cat. But we can not be sure this will happen for articles on more obscure people - articles that might not be on anyone's watchlist. The inappropriate categorization might not be caught for a long time. It would be helpful if there was a way for members of interested wikiprojects (such as WikiProject:Socialism) to watch a category... and to be alerted whenever that category is has been added to a page... so they could review the page and categorization, and ensure that the categorization was appropriate and verifiable. Blueboar ( talk) 14:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone has just changed the Category:Wendland to Category:Wendland (region) without a) informing me as the orginator and b) spotting that there is an RFM discussion currently ongoing to move the primary article from Wendland (region) to Wendland. If the move is approved, as seems likely, we're going to have to move the category back. I can't find the CFD proposal and resulting discussion - is it archived anywhere? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Look at these deletions unjustified: Category:Canadian male athletes and Category:Canadian female athletes, this revert and this message: «FYI, I tend to agree with your reasoning; it's purely the way you're going about implementing it to which I am opposed.» Nyttend. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 16:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone should close this actors discussion and this actresses discussion from November. I can't, because I commented on it. But someone should settle the issue. (Beyond those, this librettist discussion of mine is the only one remaining from November. It should also be closed.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)