![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This discussion is clearly going nowhere, since one admin objects to everything without providing alternatives.
Leaving the discussion open is clearly just sucking editors into a wormhole, so I have deleted my draft to end the drama.
I thought that here seemed to be consensus for some sort of expansion of the possibility of NACs to clear the backlog, but I clearly misjudged that ... and I am sorry for wasting editors' time with this proposal. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As discussed above, I have set up a page for non-admin CFD closures, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Non-admin closures.
For now, I have tagged it as {{ under construction}}.
To see its effect on WP:CFDW, I did a test transclusion which I then self-reverted. See the Test
No details were discussed above, so I have made WP:BOLD decisions on how to structure it. It would be best if my choices are reviewed before this goes lives.
Points to note:
----
, to separate each closureNote that the page makes prolific use of <includeonly>..</includeonly>
and <noinclude>..</noinclude>
so irrelevant text does not display when transcluded in WP:CFDW
That's it. I hope that the page is reasonably straightforward, and strikes an appropriate balance between inadequate explanation and instruction creep
Comments/denunciations etc welcome. We need a rough consensus before implementing something like this. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
To indicate that manual work is necessary, and that the bot shouldn't blindly remove the category, use the following format:? I don't understand the format, but I'm also confused about why its needed, since non-admins like myself can still edit the manual page. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
dedicated section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working for transfers from this page. What I did (in my reverted test) was to transclude this page into WP:CFDW, so that anyone looking at CFDW can see at a glance whether there are items which need to be transferred.
Please assess whether the closure meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (WP:NAC).
If you believe that the closure may be outside the scope of WP:NAC, please leave a signed note in the relevant section below pending resolution of the issues.
Whatever action you take, it will be helpful to the non-admin closers if you include in the edit summary a ping to the closer. This can be done simply by linking to their userpage, e.g.
[[User:Example2]] -- move for processing
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs), WP:CFDWNAC as of as of 00:08, 11 March 2019
@ SmokeyJoe and BU Rob13: thanks for your comments.
I agree that is not OK to "overturn a close of a non-admin merely because they weren't an admin"
, and I don't think I implied that. I certainly didn't set out to do so.
But from the responses by both of you, maybe I have done something in that direction, or maybe struck the wrong tone?
So in the quote box on the right, I have quoted the current text of the notes, which I think is the relevant section. (If not, pls correct me.)
Do either or both of you want to suggest changes or a complete rewording?
As I note at the outset, this is just my first draft ... and if/when this goes live, it has to be on the basis of consensus support. If that looks nothing like my draft, so be it.
--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
01:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
some essay, and it's disappointing to see you repeatedly mislabelling it in that way.
how a disagreement over the instructions for this page has led to you considering withdrawing the proposal entirely.
what should it look like when an admin disagrees with a CfD close that a non-admin has made?: "please leave a signed note in the relevant section below pending resolution of the issues."
what should it look likeyou actually mean "what actions should the admin take" ... and my answer to that is again that this technical page is not the place to micro-specify that.
should simply be elevated to guideline. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you'd undo the closure of this section, because I think there is progress to be made here. I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I'm not trying to reach the best possible solution or else scuttle the whole thing. I'm trying to ensure we get to the best possible solution that we can agree on. That does take some discussing of our different viewpoints, which is all I believe we've done here. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The action an admin might take then could be anywhere on the spectrum of: think-a-bit-then-proceed ... discuss-with-closer ... take-to-DRV ... to at an extreme, overturn if it seems outrageous. This is not the place to specify how those choices would be made or to define the limits on them.
I withdraw any objection to any of this, as well as my participation in this area for at least the near future. Please do not let me be the reason this doesn't happen. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence for sure, but for what it's worth, I nearly retired after my own RfA even though the outcome never appeared to be in serious doubt. Editors who I had disagreed with in content disputes came out of the woodwork to oppose based on grudges they chose to hold onto for no particular reason. Long-term editors I had never met took to openly calling me a sock with no evidence besides the fact that I was fairly competent right out of the gate. Others criticized me for early mistakes characteristic of a newbie. (Yes, I get the irony that the last two positions are contradictory.) I found it to be a profoundly unpleasant experience, and I very nearly withdrew despite heading toward success just to make it end. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to some cunning Lua programming by @ Pppery at Module:XfD old, I have created a template to dynamically display the current state of the backlog at WP:CFD and WP:TFD.
The template is {{ XFD backlog}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Behold the end of the era of bots and the beginning of the era of Lua! {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have written a LUA module, currently at Module:Sandbox/Od Mishehu/cfd, which would duplicate the functionality of the current {{ cfd all}}, the template which all the other cfd templates ultimately use. I believe my module is both more readable than {{ cfd all}}; and, since it uses only a single parameter to represent the type of discussion, it's easier to upgrade the system if we create an other discussion type. Note that for attribution purposes, we don't need to keep {{ cfd all}}, since this version of {{ cfr}} is virtually the same. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The lua module, as currently coded, is an example of a module I would TfD as "Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext". {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The following was posted at WT:XFDC#CfD Relisting - discussions should be closed as relisted:
WP:RELIST says that
When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue.However, currently relisting CfDs does result in removing it from the log. As BU Rob13 nicely explained to me ( User talk:DannyS712#Relisting CfDs),When you relist a CfD, the appropriate way to do so is to leave the original discussion where it was, closing it as normal with "relisted at X" as the rationale, with X being a link to the new discussion. You can then copy over the discussion to the new location with {{ relist}}.
The above advice is inconsistent with WP:CFDAI, which for relisting says "See Template:Cfd relisted" – and that template's documentation says to replace the original discussion. So what is, or should be, the relisting procedure for CFD? (Note that I can code XFDcloser to do CFD relists either way – the script already uses the "close as relisted" method for TFD relists, and the "replace with a relisted note" method for RFD) - Evad37 [ talk 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The tasks added in the last ~12h to the page were not processed. Usually they are taken care of within minutes, and I do not see any issues with the added tasks so that the bot could have got stuck.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre.
Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Page mover access is now necessary to move categories. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I would have sworn that Renaming of Categories by Page Move was not permitted; hence the existence of the CFD process. And yet I just discovered a whole group of categories that were moved by an editor completely on his own accord a few years back, simply by moving them as is done with articles. Has there been a major change on how this is handled compared to how things were done 5 or 10 years ago? (Is my memory failing, or has there always been a Page Move button/link right there on every Category page?) I would be most appreciative if someone would be kind enough to clarify all of this. Thanks in advance! Anomalous+0 ( talk) 12:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create an edit filter that blocks users other than bots and admins from moving categories, in order to solve the problem of out-of-process moves that keeps coming up? {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 04:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
move-categorypages
right (Move category pages) from user
s, which would leave sysop
as the only group with the right. It could also be granted to bot
s if desired. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Should the ability for unprivileged users to move categories be removed?. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC) (modified 17:16, 22 February 2019 (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.
tboverride
permission forgetting that PM got that too in the end. I agree it's a better fit for PM. (since we're doing disclosure, I'm both TE & PM)
Cabayi (
talk)
19:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)To implement this change, I opened phab:T219261 and then filed [5]. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
small RFC? ∯WBG converse 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Deployed as of a minute or two ago. If there are issues, please re-open
the task.
Jdforrester (WMF) (
talk)
23:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a pretty big backlog of CfDs waiting for closure, but per
WP:CFDAI If you are a non-admin, you will not be able to use the /Working page as it is protected, so do not close discussions that require any of the above 3 actions [rename, merge, or delete] unless you are prepared to implement them manually, or an admin has agreed to help you
. Are any admins willing to help me close some discussions? Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
05:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
When @ DannyS712 opened this discussion on 8 March, and @ Hhkohh pinged some admins, the was a backlog of 156 unclosed CFDs.
This morning, the backlog is down to 88.
I had a blitz over the last few days, and closed or relisted ~70 CFDs in the last 3 days. I can't keep on putting that much time into it, and I don't think it's good for one editor to close too big a proportion of them, so I'm going to take a bit of a break from it.
I know that several other editors have closed quite a few, but we still need a spurt of more closes to clear the backlog.
There are still 15 unclosed discussion from January, and it would be great to see them closed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
-- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Right now, I've got an edit queued as User:Izno/Sandbox#c2ds to mass-nominate several category moves per existing RFC consensus. Does it make sense to have a detailed explanation about the RFC in each line or is C2D sufficient or should I make a top level bullet which indicates this has consensus (given the number of categories nominated)? -- Izno ( talk) 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I see Cydebot has just changed Category:Sports organisations established in the 1910s to Category:Sports organizations established in the 1910s and a whole bunch of other categories, changing the spelling from British English "organisation" to US English "organization". That's clearly a breach of WP:ENGVAR. Bermicourt ( talk) 07:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If I click "+" to add a category, then hit it again to get a second text field, then fill in both text fields and hit "OK" for both, it still isn't saved. To save my edit I must hit a third button, the "save" button, located at the top of the list of cats and thus easy to miss. If I fail to hit the third button, I can close the tab without getting a pop-up warning me of unsaved changes. This caused me to lose a bunch of edits before I noticed. Can anyone think of a better user interface design? HLHJ ( talk) 23:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too hard, but I don't use whatever automated tool makes listing multiple categories for discussion not a pain. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I recently found 14 categories (listed at User:DannyS712/sandbox#Redirect categories) that are entirely composed of pages with 2 lines, a redirect to the category, and then a categorization in the category. They are basically lists of the journals in Beall's List before it was taken down. I believe that the categories should be converted to lists (of plain text, not of links to the pages in them), and then deleted. This would mean that all of the redirects in the categories, which redirect to the categories themselves, would be deleted under G8. Should this group nomination take place at CfD, where the categories would be deleted and the redirects speedied per G8, or at RfD, and then (if they are all deleted) the categories deleted per C1? Since there are more than 6000 redirects, I'd prefer the former, but I'd like to ensure that this is done right, since what shouldn't happen is that a bot processes the categories and removes the redirects from the categories, but leaves the redirects themselves just lying around. Thoughts? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seems to be an ongoing project here to eliminate Hall of Fame categories. My concern is that there appears to be no consistent criteria. For example, if Hall of Fame categories are to be eliminated entirely with WP:OCAWARD's vague "not a defining characteristic", then why is Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees not up for CfD? Let's start at the top. All the arguments I see at the various CfD discussions use WP:NOTDEFINING, so why not Football? On the other hand, if we are going to keep the Pro Football category (which has about ±300 articles in it), then what is the dividing line beyond "I've never heard of it" or "only five articles" or whatever? For example, state-level halls of fame, HOFs for sports less widely-televised than American Football, and so on. I'm concerned about this inconsistency and the potential for bias against smaller or under-represented topics. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently, non-admin closures of CfDs still generally require the help of an admin to implement, since WP:CFDW is fully protected. Having worked for a while to get help from admins to implement my closures, what would other users think of me creating a new bot task to implement my closures? As a page mover, I can now move categories myself, and the bot would simply go through and remove/replace categories, the same way the current bot does, except I would trigger it manually using AWB. (I would use a separate bot account to avoid flooding the recent changes feed; see here for more). Thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging some of the admins that have helped me: @ BrownHairedGirl, Ymblanter, and JJMC89. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
An IP is trying to get all articles created by a now-blocked editor deleted, apparently out of spite for some reason. This includes Category:Songs written by Renārs Kaupers, which they have simply tried tagging with a PROD and not gone through the proper procedure for CfD. Regardless of whether this category should be deleted or not, can the malformed deletion notice be removed from this page? Richard3120 ( talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I patrol Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and tag empty categories to sit for 7 days before they are deleted (only if they remain empty). Daily I seem to come across categories that have been emptied after a CfD has been closed but the category has not been deleted and it is sometimes a couple of days (or weeks) since the CfD has closed. Will a bot eventually delete the cats or can I go ahead and do so? I don't delete a category that is part of a CfD even if it has been closed.
I guess I'm leaving this note to verify that I can go ahead and delete categories in a closed CfD instead of waiting for the bot to get to it. I have at times left a note to the CfD closer to let them know that the category still exists. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I am seeking approval for a bot to bypass double category redirects. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 17. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It recently came to my attention that Category:Deaths from heart failure and Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction had been re-created against consensus of relevant discussions, and that [[: Category:Deaths from heart-related cause, a grammatically deficient copy of Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths (deleted in this discussion), had also been created. I've just (abv?)used Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to clear out and re-delete the categories per speedy deletion criterion G4, protected the first two to prevent good-faith re-creations, and made sure that all the relevant subcategories of the latter category were still properly categorised. Pinging @ Paulinho28 and Anasuya.D: as the creators of both these categories, and @ Marcocapelle: who was a strong advocate for their deletion. I hope this is all (relatively) OK. Graham 87 17:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone explain or refer me to an explanation of what containerization is? A search in Help found nothing. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Based on User:Oculi's comment in this discussion, here is a suggestion for an additional criterion for speedy deletion. I have advertised this proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, please feel free to advertise it anywhere else where you think it is appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:C2F
WP:C2F
@ GoldRingChip: – This user moved a bunch of categories per uncontroversial case fixing, but didn't do the corresponding fixes to articles in the categories. Is there an easy way to clean this up? Someone maybe advise him or assist him? See hus move log. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental excision of 18KB from this page (the project page, not this talk page). It appears I tried to edit an older version of it. Bruce leverett ( talk) 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to propose a move of these categories from their current places to new ones in relation to article-based "Requested Move" I have proposed. How would I go about proposing multiple categories? Here is the list
My reasoning for the move as per the proposed move is:
UaMaol ( talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Which deletion procedure is the right one for a category that was deleted ( WP:CfD) but was recreated shortly after? I'm speaking of Category:People of Swedo-Finnish descent that was deleted in last June. 85.156.64.153 ( talk) 15:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
db-repost|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 5#Category:People of Finland Swedish descent}}
, and if that fails, another
WP:CFD may be in order. Whichever you use, remember to link to the original deletion discussion. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
16:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)A very unusual redirect is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 27#Academic_and_Scientific_Publishing. It might be useful to have some fresh eyes on it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The C2D criterion currently says:
Technical requests at WP:RM are overseen and checked by administrators before implementation. The change in Part A would recognise these as sufficient grounds to rename a category. Part B is to recognise what is already accepted practice; other examples are alumni from a college, or albums by a band. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
or... unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citationsclause in WP:C2D, because it's actually very common for RM discussions to reject a new official name as the new article title on the basis of it not being the WP:COMMONNAME. The WP:OFFICIALNAMES page is specifically about this:
People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article... In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.Here's just one recent example - the Motion Picture Association of America officially rebranded as the "Motion Picture Association" but an RM didn't find consensus to move to that name ( here are many more examples).
Should C1 and C2 nominations be reported on WikiProject Alerts pages? Please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#Speedy category processes not reported. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
How would I go about starting a discussion about a change in a redirect category naming convention? While the main category has a lot of 1 level-deep sub-categories, they are probably only watched by the creator of those categories and I'd prefer not to tag all of these categories if I don't have to. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
New cat with a meaningless name..... Category:Wikipedia community sites. Anyone know what "community sites" means and is it something people will search for? As someone who has been taking care of our help system for years I am puzzled at this new cats meaning. Is this worthwhile keeping?-- Moxy 🍁 00:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I got frustrated with {{
cfdnotice}}
, and have expanded its functionality. It now handles |type=
and |target=
parameters, and has {{
cfrnotice}}
and {{
cfmnotice}}
wrappers that apply |type=
automatically. Also created redirects like
Template:CfD notice,
Template:CFRnotice, and
Template:cfm-notice, etc., etc. (every variant) so you don't have to memorize the "cfxnotice" exact spelling style.
I have not made corresponding enhancements to the {{
cfd-notify}}
and {{
cfdnotice2}}
templates (yet? – I'm hoping someone else will beat me to it). Just kind of ran out of coffee-induced patience for it all at the moment, though this would probably be most useful of all for {{cfd-notify}}
(the user notification) since we use it a lot more often. I just started with the first one that came to mind.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The merging, renaming, and converting templates all accept a second parameter for the new name, while splitting takes two. The tagging templates ({{ cfm}}, {{ cfr}}, and {{ cfs}}) all handle an unprovided name just fine ({{ cfc}} doesn't yet, as it appears to be unsupported by Module:cfd) but the nominating templates ({{ cfm2}}, {{ cfr2}}, {{ cfc2}}, and {{ cfs2}}) do not, displaying Category:TO CATEGORY, Category:NEW CATEGORY, TO ARTICLE, and Category:OTHER NEW CATEGORY. Are those occasionally useful, in case someone wants to nominate something but doesn't know what best it should be renamed/split/etc. to? I can make Twinkle not allow such empty nominations, but I'm not a CfD regular so I figured I should ask here first to see what folks think. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot, which is a proposal for an admin bot to tag and delete empty categories in accordance with WP:C1. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The tagging templates {{ cfc}} and {{ cfl}} are different, mainly around the use of "article" versus "list." The nominating template {{ cfl2}} redirects to {{ cfc2}}. The CfD instructions don’t treat them as separate, which makes sense since there's no real difference. Indeed, the only difference is whether to use the word "article" or the word "list." With that in mind, should Twinkle offer:
Basically, this is a lot of text asking whether CfD-ers want to change the word "article" to "list." ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a category Category:Video games by game engine which itself is fine, but it is the 53 subcats currently in it that I'm looking to have moved/renamed in the same renaming schema. Do I need to make a CFD entry for all 53, or is there a different approach I can take with those? -- Masem ( t) 17:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to use this a few times recently, when I've changed my mind about something I've done, and in in each case there have been objections. I've not noticed anyone else using it. Is it actually useful, or should we abolish it? Rathfelder ( talk) 14:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
current C2D text
|
---|
|
In practice, all requests that involve removing a disambiguator from a category name are being opposed. In order to formalize that, I propose to add explicitly in the C2D criteria something like:
This may reduce the number of hopeless CFDS requests a bit. @ Armbrust, Gonnym, Fayenatic london, Ymblanter, Oculi, Rathfelder, Black Falcon, and GiantSnowman: pinging a number of CFDS regulars. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Standard article naming conventions applywhich leads to Wikipedia:Article titles). -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Your input about the categorization of settlements is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions. Thank you, Renata ( talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Module:Cfd has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I created Category:Bandon without realising there was already Category:Bandon, County Cork. I have removed Category:Bandon from the few pages I had added it to, but I believe it should also be deleted, leaving only Category:Bandon, County Cork. Please could an administrator )or whoever appropriate, I'm not sure) delete Category:Bandon? Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 ( talk) 12:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
db-author}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Would like to know before I tag categories. Are the year categories for articles that are titled "AD x" ( AD 12, AD 1000), such as Category:12 eligible for WP:C2D? Pinging @ Fayenatic london: as they handle a lot of CFDS. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:C2B Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices lists two criteria: expanding names like U.S., and DAB. My question is: is this the complete list? Or could WP:DEFINE be applicable too? - DePiep ( talk) 11:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
hi. is there any way to tag a specific current CfD discussion, to request input from a wider group of editors? thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:cfd-notify}}
and {{
subst:cfdnotice}}
judiciously, being careful to observe
WP:CANVAS. Unfortunately, I don't think that
WP:DELSORT can be used for CfDs. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I just added Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_20#Scripts_encoded_in_Unicode_1.0 manually, because it is a bulk. Somehow, the link from a tagged page does not work: see Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 2.0 "this category's entry" link. Can someone fix this? Thx. - DePiep ( talk) 21:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Cfm full|day=20|month=March|year=2020|startmonth=March|startyear=2020|1=Scripts encoded in Unicode 1.0}}
—
Diannaa (
talk)
22:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC){{
subst:cfm}}
, the section name is passed as second parameter, as per
its documentation. When substituted,
Template:Cfm full uses its first positional parameter for section link, when passing to
Module:Cfd. The
fix is to pass the full section name as first parameter to {{Cfm full}}
, as Diannaa has pointed out. —
andrybak (
talk)
22:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
CFD
template? I did not come here out of lazyness. Meanwhile I fixed an other issue
here. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Since
stub templates are nominated at CfD, I was surprised that the nominating templates {{
sfd-t}} and {{
sfr-t}} didn't have corresponding discussion text templates. I went ahead and created {{
sfd-t2}} and {{
sfr-t2}} to align with the others. I also added a |stub=
parameter to {{
cfd-notify}} (similar to {{
tfdnotice}}'s |module=
) to change the messages there to be appropriate for a stub template notice. I don't spend much time at CfD, so I'd welcome feedback, changes, or a smack across the head as needed! ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
13:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
C2D, in particular its "set category"-related last paragraph, has come up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions – depending on the outcome of that decision, some precisions in order to avoid pitfalls might need to be added to the C2D guidance. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to propose renaming all of the categories in this category. Given that there are so many and I don't have Twinkle, etc, I was wondering if someone with those tools could set it up for me? I'm thinking "Albanian Eurovision Song Contest entrants" -> "Eurovision Song Contest entrants of Albania", and so on so that it doesn't assign a nationality to the entrant. Also, is this something that would need discussion or is there precedence to fix these types of wording fixes automatically? Grk1011 ( talk) 15:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Category:Far-right terrorism, but no Category:Far-left terrorism. Why? Both extremes resort to terrorism. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Giving notice by this posting that I am going ahead, contrary to this previous CFD in 2018' which led to consensus decision to delete, to re-create the deleted Category:Historic Hotels of America. I thought maybe running a new CFD would be required or would be good practice, but I don't see relevant advice at wp:CFD. I just see flat statement: "If a category is a red link, then it is already deleted (or was never created in the first place) and does not need to be nominated."
The 2018 CFD came to the wrong decision, not really the closer ( User:Good Olfactory)'s fault IMHO, but nonetheless the wrong decision based on facts available already, IMHO. There was unfortunate dismissal of the views/info provided by the one participant most fully informed about the topic, IMHO. It is no longer timely to try to reverse the decision at wp:Deletion Review, though. Anyhow now, after a lot of development, mostly by me, of National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America (soon to be moved/renamed to Historic Hotels of America) and creation or expansion of many linked individual hotel articles, it would be more clear, immediately, to anyone investigating that the topic and category are justified.
There is more explanation at National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America#Previously existing category for Historic Hotels of America (which after a Requested Move is completed, will be at Historic Hotels of America#Previously existing category for Historic Hotels of America). User:Magnolia677 who nominated the category for deletion in 2018, and User:Thierry Caro who participated on the "Keep" side back in that CFD, there note this new initative and support, or at least do not oppose, re-creation now.
If anyone wants to notify all the other 2018 CFD participants (who mostly were on "Delete" side), feel free. Or let me know if I should. Otherwise I don't want to aggravate them, in effect confronting them with my retrospective opinion that they were all wet, and/or stir up renewed opposition. Any new discussion will lead inevitably to approval of re-creation of category, I am sure.
Questions:
1) Is it required or preferred to run a new CFD to reverse the previous CFD's decision, in this case?
2) Is it required or preferred to notify the participants at the previous CFD, about this discussion or about a new CFD?
Thanks, -- Doncram ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There was unfortunate dismissal of the views/info provided by the one participant most fully informed about the topicmakes it sound like you are under the impression that one participant gets to decide what the consensus is, regardless of the discussion held, which is not how consensus works. You can try the argument at WP:DRV, but such arguments rarely get somewhere. -- Izno ( talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
G* criteria are applicable in all namespaces unless otherwise specified. G4 particularly says nothing about articles
much less explicitly
so: page
is used where one might expect article
to have been used were it the case that G4 was only about articles (This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.
).
That for an informed capable editor to create a sensible category
re-create is key here. You may create any category you wish, but almost by definition, the category page will have almost the exact same content as it did prior to deletion by the discussion and so G4 applies to this case. (An article is different in that regard.)
provide review of admin-type deletion decisions
Yes?... "Did the admin closing the discussion in question make the right call?" is indeed the question posed at DRV. You dispute that the call was correct. DRV is accordingly the place to dispute the decision. I do not quite understand why you believe a DRV for 7 days would be any different than a CFD for... 7? days. Moreover, CFD's scope is delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types
, none of which you are proposing.
(There is a possibility that I do not understand the correct place to go here. It is also possible that you could just WP:BEBOLD and create the category yourself anyway and then let whoever stumbles upon it decide whether that should have been done, but IIRC you have had previous run-ins with The Law in that regard.)
-- Izno ( talk) 02:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sort of related to my above note at #Templates for stub template nominations, but part of the reason I created templates for stub template nominations was to let Twinkle properly handle 'em. SD0001 noted that there's nothing for a proposed merger of a stub template. There wasn't any mention of it in the instructions, so what's the process? They're presumably rare, and I haven't been able to find some examples of these. Would creating {{ sfm-t}} and {{ sfm-t2}} be worthwhile, or is there a different procedure recommended? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Related to this, but Twinkle should now properly support nominating stub templates for deletion and renaming at CfD, and autoselect CfD as the venue. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to merge categories which each have fewer than five articles (including daughter in categories) from multiple country-based categories to continent-based ones.
The continent categories in question:
The following continent-based categories have enough schools to remain viable:
The following continent-based categories have potential to remain viable:
The other relevant country-based categories should be merged into the continent-based categories. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Applying_speedy_criteria_in_full_discussions. Should there not be some advertised route for bringing such noms at cfd to the attention of potential 'speedy' closers? I refer in particular to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Category:Defunct_mass_media which appears to me to be speediable and which is overlapping with further noms I wish to make. Oculi ( talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (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.
What should be the venue for discussing rcat ( WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?
This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support (5.67) (6.67) (7.83), followed by RfD (4.67) (5.33) and then CfD (3.67) (4.67) (4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat templates, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority (8–6) (9–7) (10–8). Of course, whether the rcat template is separable from the rcat category was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.
Venue | Editor(s) | Argument(s) |
---|---|---|
CfD | JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix | The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category. |
RfD | Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes | Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates. |
TfD | Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943 | Templates should be discussed at TfD. |
CfD or TfD | Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking | CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed. |
CfD, RfD, or TfD | Davidwr | Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at WT:REDIRECT or the other venues). |
I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat template), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
I would like to nominate all the subcategories of Category:Centenarians except Category:Supercentenarians for deletion, but I don't know how to do mass nominations. Could someone help?
Desired rationale:
Almost no one in these categories is notable for being a centenarian; rather they are notable for other achievements (suggesting that being a centenarian is not defining). Randomly selected examples include:
- Gochomu J. Mudzingwa, only member of Category:Zimbabwean centenarians, known for being a tribal leader rather than living to 101
- Ahmet Kayhan Dede, from Category:Turkish centenarians, known for being an Islamic mystic and not for living to the age of 100
- Lotte Koch, from Category:German centenarians, known for being an actress, not for living to 100
- Viktor Hamburger (also a German centenerian) known for his work in science
- Walter Thomas James Morgan, British centenerian known for his work in science
- Aarne Kainlauri, Finnish centenarian known for being an Olympic athlete
Very few of these articles actually have sourced content that even relates to their subject's longevity. Because life expectancy is increasing around the world, being a centenarian is less and less unusual and therefore less and less defining.
An editor just created the category "Left-handed guitarists" Category:Left-handed_guitarists. Based on prior discussion here it was decided that the category "Left-handed musicians" be deleted, and you can read that discussion to see the reasoning. This old category was dismissed as trivia and I see no difference with this new category. It should be deleted. SolarFlash Discussion 18:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Admin_instructions treat any opposition as carrying sufficient weight to prevent speedy processing, even if the rationale is missing, plainly mistaken or futile against the weight of precedent.
I have followed that approach in the past but this seems to be overly cautious, cf. this bold and helpful decision by Good Ol'factory.
In effect I have interpreted the end of WP:C2D, "or it is controversial in some other way", to include WP:ILIKEIT/ WP:IDONTLIKEIT by treating any "Oppose" as a block to processing. It seems to me that I have been too reticent to use admin powers boldly, and the Speedy AI section needs rewriting accordingly. – Fayenatic London 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a criterion I'm missing or is there some other way that I can get a speedy processing of a category due to WP:G5? Just blocked a category-minded sock ( Special:Contributions/Dietic). -- Izno ( talk) 01:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't find any instructions for how to oppose a speedy. Do you simply record your oppose; or do this and move the request and oppose to the opposed section? Thincat ( talk) 10:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I see you guys have quite a backlog again. I'm planning to help out this weekend (starting tomorrow) as I've done a few times previously when the backlog was particularly bad. Just thought I should ask how I should handle my non-admin closes. Could I just list everything I want listed at WP:CFDW at the talk page and let an admin actually implement it? I heard somewhere someone saying that I should do as much as possible on my own without the bot which is almost always possible for renames as an AWB user and page mover but to be frank that just seems like a waste of time when we have a bot that can do it. Thanks! -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Having recently opposed a speedy nomination for the first time and finding the procedure arcane and lacking in instructions, I have added some instructions to WP:CFDS. I have been bold in editing straight there but, of course, would welcome corrections and improvements. The instructions might have been better in their own subsection (before Admin instructions?) but I think adding an extra subsection may require various templates to be changed from pointing to editing "section 11". Thincat ( talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I would like to propose a new speedy criterion C2G: reversal of a recent speedy renaming, to allow full discussion (some justification would need to be supplied). This would allow us to apply WP:BRD to the speedy CFD process, and is needed, in my view, since CFDS's 48 hours is VERY short, making it difficult for even WikiAddicts to stay on top of all the speedy renominations (note: "speedy" empty category deletion gets seven days, 3 1/2 times as long). I anticipate one objection: "recent" is intentionally not defined, and anyone could oppose a C2G nom as "not recent enough." Rather than throwing sand in the gears and lengthening the 48 hours for ALL speedy noms, I think this is better. But what say you: Support, Oppose this proposal? UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding name changes of film studios, sports teams or similar categories that while WP:C2D, create anachronistic categories and shouldn't qualify for a speedy move. After the Disney-Fox merger, Fox categories such as Category:20th Century Fox films and Category:Fox Searchlight Pictures films were moved to their new names, but then after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 75#Fox Searchlight Pictures categorizing were reverted back and the category tree was restructured with new and old names. This situation is exactly the same for sports teams. Placing a player like John Barber (basketball) who played for Minneapolis Lakers in a Category:Los Angeles Lakers is just flat out incorrect. I've been opposing these speedy moves, but there is no way I can keep up with the amount of weekly requests. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
multiple categories would not be helpful for navigation- navigation should be secondary to accuracy in this situation. It's just factually not correct, which is a problem. In addition, in most cases, name changes don't occur out of the blue. In sports it can mean a team moved a city (Minneapolis/Los Angles), in media like the above film example, a company merged/bought another company. That does not make those films "released by Disney" now, even-though Disney now does own them. The proper solution would just be to change the top most category per C2D, but leave the specific categories. So the top level category is now "Los Angels Lakers" (which is like the "franchise" category for a film franchise), then have "Los Angels Lakers players" and also "Minneapolis Lakers players" categories. This handles both C2D and accuracy. I agree, that a template like {{ G8-exempt}} is a good idea. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Consistency in category names and the main article is positively helpful in some hierarchies, e.g. music albums, because of the use of {{ albums category}} then automatically links to the main article, the head category and the songs category, e.g. Category:1927 (band) albums. In that example, we are committed to keeping the disambiguator "(band)" as part of all the related category names.
However, great minds have told us that
In other hierarchies we are rolling out consistency even where there is little apparent gain. For example, Terminator is a disambiguation page covering e.g. gene terminator as well as the famous film series and its spin-off media, whose main article therefore has to be Terminator (franchise). The main category is therefore likewise Category:Terminator (franchise). The debatable point is that WP:C2C is then invoked to rename all its sub-cats e.g. Category:Terminator films to Category:Terminator (franchise) films. IMHO this would result in longwinded and clumsy titles for insufficient gain.
I therefore propose that the disambiguator "(franchise)" should generally not be replicated into sub-category names for e.g. specific media types within a franchise hierarchy. Only the top category for that franchise needs to contain the word "(franchise)".
Likewise, similar disambiguators may also be excluded from the general requirement for consistency, e.g. the disambiguators "(film series)", "(TV series)" and "(video game series)" probably do not need to be replicated down to categories of characters, episodes etc, except where there is ambiguity at that level. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply)
04:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
However that "simple and obvious solution" is neither simple nor obvious. There are currently 4,787 categories which transclude Template:Albums category and are named with a parenthetical disambiguator. Consistency ensures that the templates generate cross-link automatically, but without consistency somebody has to manually check those cross-links to cats for EPs, singles, songs, songs written, etc. If those cross-links are not generated automatically, then there will be over 28,000 links to manually check and maintain. Is UnitedStatesian volunteering to all of that monitoring in perpetuity? Or just hoping that other editors will shoulder the burden created by that proposal? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)the simple and obvious solution to the affected albums categories would be just this: don't use the template on those categories
Does C2A apply to correcting obvious grammatical errors in category names? For example, changing Individual frogs toads to Individual frogs and toads? If so, can I add this bullet point? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet how pluralization of topic and set categories should be handled. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such change involves the distinction between topic and set categories.
A whole slew of categories were moved overnight from "Conservation in X" to "Nature Conservation in X" as a speedy move. Can someone direct to me to the discussion on this, as I sadly missed this? To take as an example, Category:Nature conservation in Scotland clearly includes both nature conservation and heritage/built environment, and the lead article, Conservation in Scotland, is written to reflect this. Grinner ( talk) 07:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, looking for some technical assistance from a CFD regular. Per this CfD, I'm looking to generate a list of every political party topical category that does not prefix the word "political" before "parties", i.e., something like the following list:
Extended content
|
---|
Category:Agrarian parties Category:Agrarian parties in Australia Category:Agrarian parties in Austria Category:Agrarian parties in Bulgaria Category:Agrarian parties in Canada Category:Agrarian parties in Costa Rica Category:Agrarian parties in Germany Category:Agrarian parties in Greece Category:Agrarian parties in Hungary Category:Agrarian parties in India Category:Agrarian parties in Ireland Category:Agrarian parties in Lithuania Category:Agrarian parties in Pakistan Category:Agrarian parties in Poland Category:Agrarian parties in Romania Category:Agrarian parties in Serbia Category:Agrarian parties in Slovenia Category:Agrarian parties in the Philippines Category:Agrarian parties in the United States Category:Agrarian parties in Ukraine Category:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party member parties Category:Anarchist parties Category:Anti-communist parties Category:Anti-communist parties in the Czech Republic Category:Anti-nationalist parties Category:Asturian nationalist parties Category:Banned communist parties Category:Banned socialist parties Category:Catalan nationalist parties Category:Celtic nationalist parties Category:Central committees of communist parties Category:Centrist parties Category:Centrist parties by continent Category:Centrist parties by country Category:Centrist parties in North America Category:Christian democratic parties Category:Christian democratic parties by continent Category:Christian democratic parties in North America Category:Classical liberal parties Category:Classical liberal parties in the United States Category:Communist parties Category:Communist parties by continent Category:Communist parties by country Category:Communist parties in North America Category:Congresses of communist parties Category:Conservative liberal parties Category:Conservative parties Category:Conservative parties by continent Category:Conservative parties by country Category:Defunct Communist parties Category:Defunct conservative parties Category:Defunct far-right parties Category:Defunct nationalist parties Category:Defunct social democratic parties Category:Defunct socialist parties Category:Democratic socialist parties Category:Democratic socialist parties in Africa Category:Democratic socialist parties in Asia Category:Democratic socialist parties in Europe Category:Democratic socialist parties in North America Category:Democratic socialist parties in Oceania Category:Democratic socialist parties in South America Category:Direct democracy parties Category:Direct democracy parties in the Czech Republic Category:Ecosocialist parties Category:Falangist parties Category:Fascist parties Category:Fascist parties in Belgium Category:Fascist parties in Chile Category:Fascist parties in France Category:Fascist parties in Germany Category:Fascist parties in Romania Category:Fascist parties in Russia Category:Fascist parties in Spain Category:Fascist parties in the Netherlands Category:Fascist parties in the United Kingdom Category:Federalist parties Category:Federalist parties by country Category:Feminist parties Category:Feminist parties by continent Category:Feminist parties by country Category:Feminist parties in North America Category:Galician nationalist parties Category:Georgist parties Category:Green conservative parties Category:Green parties by continent Category:Green parties in North America Category:Labor parties in the United States Category:Labour parties Category:Labour parties in Ireland Category:Labour parties in Scotland Category:Labour parties in the United Kingdom Category:Labour parties in Ukraine Category:Left-wing nationalist parties Category:Left-wing parties Category:Left-wing parties by country Category:Left-wing populist parties Category:Liberal conservative parties Category:Liberal conservative parties by country Category:Liberal parties Category:Liberal parties by continent Category:Liberal parties by country Category:Liberal parties in North America Category:Libertarian parties Category:Libertarian parties in Austria Category:Libertarian parties in Germany Category:Libertarian parties in the Czech Republic Category:Libertarian parties in the Netherlands Category:Libertarian parties in the United Kingdom Category:Libertarian parties in the United States Category:Libertarian socialist parties Category:Maoist parties Category:Marxist parties Category:Monarchist parties Category:Monarchist parties in Afghanistan Category:Monarchist parties in Albania Category:Monarchist parties in Burundi Category:Monarchist parties in Cambodia Category:Monarchist parties in France Category:Monarchist parties in Germany Category:Monarchist parties in Greece Category:Monarchist parties in Iran Category:Monarchist parties in Iraq Category:Monarchist parties in Italy Category:Monarchist parties in Japan Category:Monarchist parties in Monaco Category:Monarchist parties in Nepal Category:Monarchist parties in Portugal Category:Monarchist parties in Romania Category:Monarchist parties in Russia Category:Monarchist parties in Serbia Category:Monarchist parties in Spain Category:Monarchist parties in the Czech Republic Category:Monarchist parties in the Netherlands Category:National conservative parties Category:National liberal parties Category:Nationalist parties Category:Nationalist parties by continent Category:Nationalist parties by country Category:Nationalist parties by ethnic group Category:Nationalist parties in North America Category:Nazi parties Category:Neo-fascist parties Category:Non-interventionist parties Category:Nordic agrarian parties Category:Pacifist parties Category:Pacifist parties in the United Kingdom Category:Paleoconservative parties Category:Pirate parties Category:Populist parties Category:Pro-independence parties Category:Progressive parties Category:Progressive parties by country Category:Progressive parties in Taiwan Category:Prohibition parties Category:Radical parties Category:Radical parties in Chile Category:Radical parties in Italy Category:Regional parties in Germany Category:Regionalist parties Category:Regionalist parties in Croatia Category:Regionalist parties in France Category:Regionalist parties in Hungary Category:Regionalist parties in India Category:Regionalist parties in Italy Category:Regionalist parties in Romania Category:Regionalist parties in Spain Category:Regionalist parties in the Czech Republic Category:Regionalist parties in the Netherlands Category:Regionalist parties in the Philippines Category:Regionalist parties in the United Kingdom Category:Regionalist parties in Ukraine Category:Republican parties Category:Republican parties in Cambodia Category:Republican parties in Spain Category:Republican parties in the United Kingdom Category:Right-wing parties Category:Right-wing parties by continent Category:Right-wing parties by country Category:Right-wing parties in North America Category:Right-wing populist parties Category:Ruling Communist parties Category:Secretariats of communist parties Category:Social conservative parties Category:Social credit parties Category:Social credit parties in Canada Category:Social democratic parties Category:Social democratic parties by country Category:Social democratic parties in Africa Category:Social democratic parties in Asia Category:Social democratic parties in Europe Category:Social democratic parties in North America Category:Social democratic parties in Oceania Category:Social democratic parties in South America Category:Social liberal parties Category:Social liberal parties in Argentina Category:Social liberal parties in the United States Category:Socialist parties Category:Socialist parties by continent Category:Socialist parties by country Category:Socialist parties in North America Category:Sri Lankan Tamil nationalist parties Category:Stalinist parties Category:Student wings of communist parties Category:Student wings of conservative parties Category:White nationalist parties Category:Women's wings of Communist parties Category:Worker-communist parties Category:Youth wings of communist parties Category:Youth wings of conservative parties Category:Youth wings of Green parties Category:Youth wings of liberal parties Category:Youth wings of social democratic parties
|
I'm figuring someone has a more complete method for pulling a printout of all subcategories. My above jury-rigged approach was based on the API but is incomplete (i.e., doesn't go deep enough). If useful as context, the idea is to feed this list into DannyS712's bot for a bundled nomination clarifying that these are "political" parties, per their parent category. czar 02:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a loss with this situation so looking for advice. This CfD has been open since June and would appear to have consensus that "Anarchist parties" is an ambiguous title (are the parties anarchist?), to be clarified as "Anarchist political parties". There is a standing/reasonable objection that similar categories be changed as well, except that such a nomination would be ponderous. With thanks to Oculi, a generated list of applicable categories for the bundle is too unwieldy for a single nom. What is the best way forward? czar 17:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I just saw this and I was left wondering who decides whether a book is popular or not. -- uKER ( talk) 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Page mover § Moving categories.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Naming of navbox categories. — andrybak ( talk) 14:27, 8 November 2020 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This discussion is clearly going nowhere, since one admin objects to everything without providing alternatives.
Leaving the discussion open is clearly just sucking editors into a wormhole, so I have deleted my draft to end the drama.
I thought that here seemed to be consensus for some sort of expansion of the possibility of NACs to clear the backlog, but I clearly misjudged that ... and I am sorry for wasting editors' time with this proposal. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As discussed above, I have set up a page for non-admin CFD closures, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Non-admin closures.
For now, I have tagged it as {{ under construction}}.
To see its effect on WP:CFDW, I did a test transclusion which I then self-reverted. See the Test
No details were discussed above, so I have made WP:BOLD decisions on how to structure it. It would be best if my choices are reviewed before this goes lives.
Points to note:
----
, to separate each closureNote that the page makes prolific use of <includeonly>..</includeonly>
and <noinclude>..</noinclude>
so irrelevant text does not display when transcluded in WP:CFDW
That's it. I hope that the page is reasonably straightforward, and strikes an appropriate balance between inadequate explanation and instruction creep
Comments/denunciations etc welcome. We need a rough consensus before implementing something like this. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
To indicate that manual work is necessary, and that the bot shouldn't blindly remove the category, use the following format:? I don't understand the format, but I'm also confused about why its needed, since non-admins like myself can still edit the manual page. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
dedicated section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working for transfers from this page. What I did (in my reverted test) was to transclude this page into WP:CFDW, so that anyone looking at CFDW can see at a glance whether there are items which need to be transferred.
Please assess whether the closure meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (WP:NAC).
If you believe that the closure may be outside the scope of WP:NAC, please leave a signed note in the relevant section below pending resolution of the issues.
Whatever action you take, it will be helpful to the non-admin closers if you include in the edit summary a ping to the closer. This can be done simply by linking to their userpage, e.g.
[[User:Example2]] -- move for processing
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs), WP:CFDWNAC as of as of 00:08, 11 March 2019
@ SmokeyJoe and BU Rob13: thanks for your comments.
I agree that is not OK to "overturn a close of a non-admin merely because they weren't an admin"
, and I don't think I implied that. I certainly didn't set out to do so.
But from the responses by both of you, maybe I have done something in that direction, or maybe struck the wrong tone?
So in the quote box on the right, I have quoted the current text of the notes, which I think is the relevant section. (If not, pls correct me.)
Do either or both of you want to suggest changes or a complete rewording?
As I note at the outset, this is just my first draft ... and if/when this goes live, it has to be on the basis of consensus support. If that looks nothing like my draft, so be it.
--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
01:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
some essay, and it's disappointing to see you repeatedly mislabelling it in that way.
how a disagreement over the instructions for this page has led to you considering withdrawing the proposal entirely.
what should it look like when an admin disagrees with a CfD close that a non-admin has made?: "please leave a signed note in the relevant section below pending resolution of the issues."
what should it look likeyou actually mean "what actions should the admin take" ... and my answer to that is again that this technical page is not the place to micro-specify that.
should simply be elevated to guideline. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you'd undo the closure of this section, because I think there is progress to be made here. I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I'm not trying to reach the best possible solution or else scuttle the whole thing. I'm trying to ensure we get to the best possible solution that we can agree on. That does take some discussing of our different viewpoints, which is all I believe we've done here. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The action an admin might take then could be anywhere on the spectrum of: think-a-bit-then-proceed ... discuss-with-closer ... take-to-DRV ... to at an extreme, overturn if it seems outrageous. This is not the place to specify how those choices would be made or to define the limits on them.
I withdraw any objection to any of this, as well as my participation in this area for at least the near future. Please do not let me be the reason this doesn't happen. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence for sure, but for what it's worth, I nearly retired after my own RfA even though the outcome never appeared to be in serious doubt. Editors who I had disagreed with in content disputes came out of the woodwork to oppose based on grudges they chose to hold onto for no particular reason. Long-term editors I had never met took to openly calling me a sock with no evidence besides the fact that I was fairly competent right out of the gate. Others criticized me for early mistakes characteristic of a newbie. (Yes, I get the irony that the last two positions are contradictory.) I found it to be a profoundly unpleasant experience, and I very nearly withdrew despite heading toward success just to make it end. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to some cunning Lua programming by @ Pppery at Module:XfD old, I have created a template to dynamically display the current state of the backlog at WP:CFD and WP:TFD.
The template is {{ XFD backlog}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Behold the end of the era of bots and the beginning of the era of Lua! {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have written a LUA module, currently at Module:Sandbox/Od Mishehu/cfd, which would duplicate the functionality of the current {{ cfd all}}, the template which all the other cfd templates ultimately use. I believe my module is both more readable than {{ cfd all}}; and, since it uses only a single parameter to represent the type of discussion, it's easier to upgrade the system if we create an other discussion type. Note that for attribution purposes, we don't need to keep {{ cfd all}}, since this version of {{ cfr}} is virtually the same. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The lua module, as currently coded, is an example of a module I would TfD as "Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext". {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The following was posted at WT:XFDC#CfD Relisting - discussions should be closed as relisted:
WP:RELIST says that
When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue.However, currently relisting CfDs does result in removing it from the log. As BU Rob13 nicely explained to me ( User talk:DannyS712#Relisting CfDs),When you relist a CfD, the appropriate way to do so is to leave the original discussion where it was, closing it as normal with "relisted at X" as the rationale, with X being a link to the new discussion. You can then copy over the discussion to the new location with {{ relist}}.
The above advice is inconsistent with WP:CFDAI, which for relisting says "See Template:Cfd relisted" – and that template's documentation says to replace the original discussion. So what is, or should be, the relisting procedure for CFD? (Note that I can code XFDcloser to do CFD relists either way – the script already uses the "close as relisted" method for TFD relists, and the "replace with a relisted note" method for RFD) - Evad37 [ talk 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The tasks added in the last ~12h to the page were not processed. Usually they are taken care of within minutes, and I do not see any issues with the added tasks so that the bot could have got stuck.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre.
Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Page mover access is now necessary to move categories. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I would have sworn that Renaming of Categories by Page Move was not permitted; hence the existence of the CFD process. And yet I just discovered a whole group of categories that were moved by an editor completely on his own accord a few years back, simply by moving them as is done with articles. Has there been a major change on how this is handled compared to how things were done 5 or 10 years ago? (Is my memory failing, or has there always been a Page Move button/link right there on every Category page?) I would be most appreciative if someone would be kind enough to clarify all of this. Thanks in advance! Anomalous+0 ( talk) 12:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create an edit filter that blocks users other than bots and admins from moving categories, in order to solve the problem of out-of-process moves that keeps coming up? {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 04:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
move-categorypages
right (Move category pages) from user
s, which would leave sysop
as the only group with the right. It could also be granted to bot
s if desired. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Should the ability for unprivileged users to move categories be removed?. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC) (modified 17:16, 22 February 2019 (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.
tboverride
permission forgetting that PM got that too in the end. I agree it's a better fit for PM. (since we're doing disclosure, I'm both TE & PM)
Cabayi (
talk)
19:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)To implement this change, I opened phab:T219261 and then filed [5]. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
small RFC? ∯WBG converse 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Deployed as of a minute or two ago. If there are issues, please re-open
the task.
Jdforrester (WMF) (
talk)
23:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a pretty big backlog of CfDs waiting for closure, but per
WP:CFDAI If you are a non-admin, you will not be able to use the /Working page as it is protected, so do not close discussions that require any of the above 3 actions [rename, merge, or delete] unless you are prepared to implement them manually, or an admin has agreed to help you
. Are any admins willing to help me close some discussions? Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
05:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
When @ DannyS712 opened this discussion on 8 March, and @ Hhkohh pinged some admins, the was a backlog of 156 unclosed CFDs.
This morning, the backlog is down to 88.
I had a blitz over the last few days, and closed or relisted ~70 CFDs in the last 3 days. I can't keep on putting that much time into it, and I don't think it's good for one editor to close too big a proportion of them, so I'm going to take a bit of a break from it.
I know that several other editors have closed quite a few, but we still need a spurt of more closes to clear the backlog.
There are still 15 unclosed discussion from January, and it would be great to see them closed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
-- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Right now, I've got an edit queued as User:Izno/Sandbox#c2ds to mass-nominate several category moves per existing RFC consensus. Does it make sense to have a detailed explanation about the RFC in each line or is C2D sufficient or should I make a top level bullet which indicates this has consensus (given the number of categories nominated)? -- Izno ( talk) 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I see Cydebot has just changed Category:Sports organisations established in the 1910s to Category:Sports organizations established in the 1910s and a whole bunch of other categories, changing the spelling from British English "organisation" to US English "organization". That's clearly a breach of WP:ENGVAR. Bermicourt ( talk) 07:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If I click "+" to add a category, then hit it again to get a second text field, then fill in both text fields and hit "OK" for both, it still isn't saved. To save my edit I must hit a third button, the "save" button, located at the top of the list of cats and thus easy to miss. If I fail to hit the third button, I can close the tab without getting a pop-up warning me of unsaved changes. This caused me to lose a bunch of edits before I noticed. Can anyone think of a better user interface design? HLHJ ( talk) 23:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too hard, but I don't use whatever automated tool makes listing multiple categories for discussion not a pain. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I recently found 14 categories (listed at User:DannyS712/sandbox#Redirect categories) that are entirely composed of pages with 2 lines, a redirect to the category, and then a categorization in the category. They are basically lists of the journals in Beall's List before it was taken down. I believe that the categories should be converted to lists (of plain text, not of links to the pages in them), and then deleted. This would mean that all of the redirects in the categories, which redirect to the categories themselves, would be deleted under G8. Should this group nomination take place at CfD, where the categories would be deleted and the redirects speedied per G8, or at RfD, and then (if they are all deleted) the categories deleted per C1? Since there are more than 6000 redirects, I'd prefer the former, but I'd like to ensure that this is done right, since what shouldn't happen is that a bot processes the categories and removes the redirects from the categories, but leaves the redirects themselves just lying around. Thoughts? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seems to be an ongoing project here to eliminate Hall of Fame categories. My concern is that there appears to be no consistent criteria. For example, if Hall of Fame categories are to be eliminated entirely with WP:OCAWARD's vague "not a defining characteristic", then why is Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees not up for CfD? Let's start at the top. All the arguments I see at the various CfD discussions use WP:NOTDEFINING, so why not Football? On the other hand, if we are going to keep the Pro Football category (which has about ±300 articles in it), then what is the dividing line beyond "I've never heard of it" or "only five articles" or whatever? For example, state-level halls of fame, HOFs for sports less widely-televised than American Football, and so on. I'm concerned about this inconsistency and the potential for bias against smaller or under-represented topics. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently, non-admin closures of CfDs still generally require the help of an admin to implement, since WP:CFDW is fully protected. Having worked for a while to get help from admins to implement my closures, what would other users think of me creating a new bot task to implement my closures? As a page mover, I can now move categories myself, and the bot would simply go through and remove/replace categories, the same way the current bot does, except I would trigger it manually using AWB. (I would use a separate bot account to avoid flooding the recent changes feed; see here for more). Thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging some of the admins that have helped me: @ BrownHairedGirl, Ymblanter, and JJMC89. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
An IP is trying to get all articles created by a now-blocked editor deleted, apparently out of spite for some reason. This includes Category:Songs written by Renārs Kaupers, which they have simply tried tagging with a PROD and not gone through the proper procedure for CfD. Regardless of whether this category should be deleted or not, can the malformed deletion notice be removed from this page? Richard3120 ( talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I patrol Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and tag empty categories to sit for 7 days before they are deleted (only if they remain empty). Daily I seem to come across categories that have been emptied after a CfD has been closed but the category has not been deleted and it is sometimes a couple of days (or weeks) since the CfD has closed. Will a bot eventually delete the cats or can I go ahead and do so? I don't delete a category that is part of a CfD even if it has been closed.
I guess I'm leaving this note to verify that I can go ahead and delete categories in a closed CfD instead of waiting for the bot to get to it. I have at times left a note to the CfD closer to let them know that the category still exists. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I am seeking approval for a bot to bypass double category redirects. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 17. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It recently came to my attention that Category:Deaths from heart failure and Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction had been re-created against consensus of relevant discussions, and that [[: Category:Deaths from heart-related cause, a grammatically deficient copy of Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths (deleted in this discussion), had also been created. I've just (abv?)used Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to clear out and re-delete the categories per speedy deletion criterion G4, protected the first two to prevent good-faith re-creations, and made sure that all the relevant subcategories of the latter category were still properly categorised. Pinging @ Paulinho28 and Anasuya.D: as the creators of both these categories, and @ Marcocapelle: who was a strong advocate for their deletion. I hope this is all (relatively) OK. Graham 87 17:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone explain or refer me to an explanation of what containerization is? A search in Help found nothing. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Based on User:Oculi's comment in this discussion, here is a suggestion for an additional criterion for speedy deletion. I have advertised this proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, please feel free to advertise it anywhere else where you think it is appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:C2F
WP:C2F
@ GoldRingChip: – This user moved a bunch of categories per uncontroversial case fixing, but didn't do the corresponding fixes to articles in the categories. Is there an easy way to clean this up? Someone maybe advise him or assist him? See hus move log. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental excision of 18KB from this page (the project page, not this talk page). It appears I tried to edit an older version of it. Bruce leverett ( talk) 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to propose a move of these categories from their current places to new ones in relation to article-based "Requested Move" I have proposed. How would I go about proposing multiple categories? Here is the list
My reasoning for the move as per the proposed move is:
UaMaol ( talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Which deletion procedure is the right one for a category that was deleted ( WP:CfD) but was recreated shortly after? I'm speaking of Category:People of Swedo-Finnish descent that was deleted in last June. 85.156.64.153 ( talk) 15:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
db-repost|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 5#Category:People of Finland Swedish descent}}
, and if that fails, another
WP:CFD may be in order. Whichever you use, remember to link to the original deletion discussion. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
16:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)A very unusual redirect is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 27#Academic_and_Scientific_Publishing. It might be useful to have some fresh eyes on it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The C2D criterion currently says:
Technical requests at WP:RM are overseen and checked by administrators before implementation. The change in Part A would recognise these as sufficient grounds to rename a category. Part B is to recognise what is already accepted practice; other examples are alumni from a college, or albums by a band. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
or... unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citationsclause in WP:C2D, because it's actually very common for RM discussions to reject a new official name as the new article title on the basis of it not being the WP:COMMONNAME. The WP:OFFICIALNAMES page is specifically about this:
People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article... In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.Here's just one recent example - the Motion Picture Association of America officially rebranded as the "Motion Picture Association" but an RM didn't find consensus to move to that name ( here are many more examples).
Should C1 and C2 nominations be reported on WikiProject Alerts pages? Please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#Speedy category processes not reported. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
How would I go about starting a discussion about a change in a redirect category naming convention? While the main category has a lot of 1 level-deep sub-categories, they are probably only watched by the creator of those categories and I'd prefer not to tag all of these categories if I don't have to. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
New cat with a meaningless name..... Category:Wikipedia community sites. Anyone know what "community sites" means and is it something people will search for? As someone who has been taking care of our help system for years I am puzzled at this new cats meaning. Is this worthwhile keeping?-- Moxy 🍁 00:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I got frustrated with {{
cfdnotice}}
, and have expanded its functionality. It now handles |type=
and |target=
parameters, and has {{
cfrnotice}}
and {{
cfmnotice}}
wrappers that apply |type=
automatically. Also created redirects like
Template:CfD notice,
Template:CFRnotice, and
Template:cfm-notice, etc., etc. (every variant) so you don't have to memorize the "cfxnotice" exact spelling style.
I have not made corresponding enhancements to the {{
cfd-notify}}
and {{
cfdnotice2}}
templates (yet? – I'm hoping someone else will beat me to it). Just kind of ran out of coffee-induced patience for it all at the moment, though this would probably be most useful of all for {{cfd-notify}}
(the user notification) since we use it a lot more often. I just started with the first one that came to mind.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The merging, renaming, and converting templates all accept a second parameter for the new name, while splitting takes two. The tagging templates ({{ cfm}}, {{ cfr}}, and {{ cfs}}) all handle an unprovided name just fine ({{ cfc}} doesn't yet, as it appears to be unsupported by Module:cfd) but the nominating templates ({{ cfm2}}, {{ cfr2}}, {{ cfc2}}, and {{ cfs2}}) do not, displaying Category:TO CATEGORY, Category:NEW CATEGORY, TO ARTICLE, and Category:OTHER NEW CATEGORY. Are those occasionally useful, in case someone wants to nominate something but doesn't know what best it should be renamed/split/etc. to? I can make Twinkle not allow such empty nominations, but I'm not a CfD regular so I figured I should ask here first to see what folks think. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot, which is a proposal for an admin bot to tag and delete empty categories in accordance with WP:C1. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The tagging templates {{ cfc}} and {{ cfl}} are different, mainly around the use of "article" versus "list." The nominating template {{ cfl2}} redirects to {{ cfc2}}. The CfD instructions don’t treat them as separate, which makes sense since there's no real difference. Indeed, the only difference is whether to use the word "article" or the word "list." With that in mind, should Twinkle offer:
Basically, this is a lot of text asking whether CfD-ers want to change the word "article" to "list." ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a category Category:Video games by game engine which itself is fine, but it is the 53 subcats currently in it that I'm looking to have moved/renamed in the same renaming schema. Do I need to make a CFD entry for all 53, or is there a different approach I can take with those? -- Masem ( t) 17:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to use this a few times recently, when I've changed my mind about something I've done, and in in each case there have been objections. I've not noticed anyone else using it. Is it actually useful, or should we abolish it? Rathfelder ( talk) 14:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
current C2D text
|
---|
|
In practice, all requests that involve removing a disambiguator from a category name are being opposed. In order to formalize that, I propose to add explicitly in the C2D criteria something like:
This may reduce the number of hopeless CFDS requests a bit. @ Armbrust, Gonnym, Fayenatic london, Ymblanter, Oculi, Rathfelder, Black Falcon, and GiantSnowman: pinging a number of CFDS regulars. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Standard article naming conventions applywhich leads to Wikipedia:Article titles). -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Your input about the categorization of settlements is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions. Thank you, Renata ( talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Module:Cfd has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I created Category:Bandon without realising there was already Category:Bandon, County Cork. I have removed Category:Bandon from the few pages I had added it to, but I believe it should also be deleted, leaving only Category:Bandon, County Cork. Please could an administrator )or whoever appropriate, I'm not sure) delete Category:Bandon? Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 ( talk) 12:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
db-author}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Would like to know before I tag categories. Are the year categories for articles that are titled "AD x" ( AD 12, AD 1000), such as Category:12 eligible for WP:C2D? Pinging @ Fayenatic london: as they handle a lot of CFDS. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:C2B Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices lists two criteria: expanding names like U.S., and DAB. My question is: is this the complete list? Or could WP:DEFINE be applicable too? - DePiep ( talk) 11:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
hi. is there any way to tag a specific current CfD discussion, to request input from a wider group of editors? thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:cfd-notify}}
and {{
subst:cfdnotice}}
judiciously, being careful to observe
WP:CANVAS. Unfortunately, I don't think that
WP:DELSORT can be used for CfDs. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I just added Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_20#Scripts_encoded_in_Unicode_1.0 manually, because it is a bulk. Somehow, the link from a tagged page does not work: see Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 2.0 "this category's entry" link. Can someone fix this? Thx. - DePiep ( talk) 21:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Cfm full|day=20|month=March|year=2020|startmonth=March|startyear=2020|1=Scripts encoded in Unicode 1.0}}
—
Diannaa (
talk)
22:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC){{
subst:cfm}}
, the section name is passed as second parameter, as per
its documentation. When substituted,
Template:Cfm full uses its first positional parameter for section link, when passing to
Module:Cfd. The
fix is to pass the full section name as first parameter to {{Cfm full}}
, as Diannaa has pointed out. —
andrybak (
talk)
22:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
CFD
template? I did not come here out of lazyness. Meanwhile I fixed an other issue
here. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Since
stub templates are nominated at CfD, I was surprised that the nominating templates {{
sfd-t}} and {{
sfr-t}} didn't have corresponding discussion text templates. I went ahead and created {{
sfd-t2}} and {{
sfr-t2}} to align with the others. I also added a |stub=
parameter to {{
cfd-notify}} (similar to {{
tfdnotice}}'s |module=
) to change the messages there to be appropriate for a stub template notice. I don't spend much time at CfD, so I'd welcome feedback, changes, or a smack across the head as needed! ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
13:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
C2D, in particular its "set category"-related last paragraph, has come up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions – depending on the outcome of that decision, some precisions in order to avoid pitfalls might need to be added to the C2D guidance. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to propose renaming all of the categories in this category. Given that there are so many and I don't have Twinkle, etc, I was wondering if someone with those tools could set it up for me? I'm thinking "Albanian Eurovision Song Contest entrants" -> "Eurovision Song Contest entrants of Albania", and so on so that it doesn't assign a nationality to the entrant. Also, is this something that would need discussion or is there precedence to fix these types of wording fixes automatically? Grk1011 ( talk) 15:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Category:Far-right terrorism, but no Category:Far-left terrorism. Why? Both extremes resort to terrorism. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Giving notice by this posting that I am going ahead, contrary to this previous CFD in 2018' which led to consensus decision to delete, to re-create the deleted Category:Historic Hotels of America. I thought maybe running a new CFD would be required or would be good practice, but I don't see relevant advice at wp:CFD. I just see flat statement: "If a category is a red link, then it is already deleted (or was never created in the first place) and does not need to be nominated."
The 2018 CFD came to the wrong decision, not really the closer ( User:Good Olfactory)'s fault IMHO, but nonetheless the wrong decision based on facts available already, IMHO. There was unfortunate dismissal of the views/info provided by the one participant most fully informed about the topic, IMHO. It is no longer timely to try to reverse the decision at wp:Deletion Review, though. Anyhow now, after a lot of development, mostly by me, of National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America (soon to be moved/renamed to Historic Hotels of America) and creation or expansion of many linked individual hotel articles, it would be more clear, immediately, to anyone investigating that the topic and category are justified.
There is more explanation at National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America#Previously existing category for Historic Hotels of America (which after a Requested Move is completed, will be at Historic Hotels of America#Previously existing category for Historic Hotels of America). User:Magnolia677 who nominated the category for deletion in 2018, and User:Thierry Caro who participated on the "Keep" side back in that CFD, there note this new initative and support, or at least do not oppose, re-creation now.
If anyone wants to notify all the other 2018 CFD participants (who mostly were on "Delete" side), feel free. Or let me know if I should. Otherwise I don't want to aggravate them, in effect confronting them with my retrospective opinion that they were all wet, and/or stir up renewed opposition. Any new discussion will lead inevitably to approval of re-creation of category, I am sure.
Questions:
1) Is it required or preferred to run a new CFD to reverse the previous CFD's decision, in this case?
2) Is it required or preferred to notify the participants at the previous CFD, about this discussion or about a new CFD?
Thanks, -- Doncram ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There was unfortunate dismissal of the views/info provided by the one participant most fully informed about the topicmakes it sound like you are under the impression that one participant gets to decide what the consensus is, regardless of the discussion held, which is not how consensus works. You can try the argument at WP:DRV, but such arguments rarely get somewhere. -- Izno ( talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
G* criteria are applicable in all namespaces unless otherwise specified. G4 particularly says nothing about articles
much less explicitly
so: page
is used where one might expect article
to have been used were it the case that G4 was only about articles (This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.
).
That for an informed capable editor to create a sensible category
re-create is key here. You may create any category you wish, but almost by definition, the category page will have almost the exact same content as it did prior to deletion by the discussion and so G4 applies to this case. (An article is different in that regard.)
provide review of admin-type deletion decisions
Yes?... "Did the admin closing the discussion in question make the right call?" is indeed the question posed at DRV. You dispute that the call was correct. DRV is accordingly the place to dispute the decision. I do not quite understand why you believe a DRV for 7 days would be any different than a CFD for... 7? days. Moreover, CFD's scope is delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types
, none of which you are proposing.
(There is a possibility that I do not understand the correct place to go here. It is also possible that you could just WP:BEBOLD and create the category yourself anyway and then let whoever stumbles upon it decide whether that should have been done, but IIRC you have had previous run-ins with The Law in that regard.)
-- Izno ( talk) 02:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sort of related to my above note at #Templates for stub template nominations, but part of the reason I created templates for stub template nominations was to let Twinkle properly handle 'em. SD0001 noted that there's nothing for a proposed merger of a stub template. There wasn't any mention of it in the instructions, so what's the process? They're presumably rare, and I haven't been able to find some examples of these. Would creating {{ sfm-t}} and {{ sfm-t2}} be worthwhile, or is there a different procedure recommended? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Related to this, but Twinkle should now properly support nominating stub templates for deletion and renaming at CfD, and autoselect CfD as the venue. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to merge categories which each have fewer than five articles (including daughter in categories) from multiple country-based categories to continent-based ones.
The continent categories in question:
The following continent-based categories have enough schools to remain viable:
The following continent-based categories have potential to remain viable:
The other relevant country-based categories should be merged into the continent-based categories. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Applying_speedy_criteria_in_full_discussions. Should there not be some advertised route for bringing such noms at cfd to the attention of potential 'speedy' closers? I refer in particular to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Category:Defunct_mass_media which appears to me to be speediable and which is overlapping with further noms I wish to make. Oculi ( talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (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.
What should be the venue for discussing rcat ( WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?
This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support (5.67) (6.67) (7.83), followed by RfD (4.67) (5.33) and then CfD (3.67) (4.67) (4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat templates, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority (8–6) (9–7) (10–8). Of course, whether the rcat template is separable from the rcat category was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.
Venue | Editor(s) | Argument(s) |
---|---|---|
CfD | JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix | The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category. |
RfD | Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes | Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates. |
TfD | Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943 | Templates should be discussed at TfD. |
CfD or TfD | Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking | CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed. |
CfD, RfD, or TfD | Davidwr | Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at WT:REDIRECT or the other venues). |
I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat template), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
I would like to nominate all the subcategories of Category:Centenarians except Category:Supercentenarians for deletion, but I don't know how to do mass nominations. Could someone help?
Desired rationale:
Almost no one in these categories is notable for being a centenarian; rather they are notable for other achievements (suggesting that being a centenarian is not defining). Randomly selected examples include:
- Gochomu J. Mudzingwa, only member of Category:Zimbabwean centenarians, known for being a tribal leader rather than living to 101
- Ahmet Kayhan Dede, from Category:Turkish centenarians, known for being an Islamic mystic and not for living to the age of 100
- Lotte Koch, from Category:German centenarians, known for being an actress, not for living to 100
- Viktor Hamburger (also a German centenerian) known for his work in science
- Walter Thomas James Morgan, British centenerian known for his work in science
- Aarne Kainlauri, Finnish centenarian known for being an Olympic athlete
Very few of these articles actually have sourced content that even relates to their subject's longevity. Because life expectancy is increasing around the world, being a centenarian is less and less unusual and therefore less and less defining.
An editor just created the category "Left-handed guitarists" Category:Left-handed_guitarists. Based on prior discussion here it was decided that the category "Left-handed musicians" be deleted, and you can read that discussion to see the reasoning. This old category was dismissed as trivia and I see no difference with this new category. It should be deleted. SolarFlash Discussion 18:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Admin_instructions treat any opposition as carrying sufficient weight to prevent speedy processing, even if the rationale is missing, plainly mistaken or futile against the weight of precedent.
I have followed that approach in the past but this seems to be overly cautious, cf. this bold and helpful decision by Good Ol'factory.
In effect I have interpreted the end of WP:C2D, "or it is controversial in some other way", to include WP:ILIKEIT/ WP:IDONTLIKEIT by treating any "Oppose" as a block to processing. It seems to me that I have been too reticent to use admin powers boldly, and the Speedy AI section needs rewriting accordingly. – Fayenatic London 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a criterion I'm missing or is there some other way that I can get a speedy processing of a category due to WP:G5? Just blocked a category-minded sock ( Special:Contributions/Dietic). -- Izno ( talk) 01:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't find any instructions for how to oppose a speedy. Do you simply record your oppose; or do this and move the request and oppose to the opposed section? Thincat ( talk) 10:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I see you guys have quite a backlog again. I'm planning to help out this weekend (starting tomorrow) as I've done a few times previously when the backlog was particularly bad. Just thought I should ask how I should handle my non-admin closes. Could I just list everything I want listed at WP:CFDW at the talk page and let an admin actually implement it? I heard somewhere someone saying that I should do as much as possible on my own without the bot which is almost always possible for renames as an AWB user and page mover but to be frank that just seems like a waste of time when we have a bot that can do it. Thanks! -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Having recently opposed a speedy nomination for the first time and finding the procedure arcane and lacking in instructions, I have added some instructions to WP:CFDS. I have been bold in editing straight there but, of course, would welcome corrections and improvements. The instructions might have been better in their own subsection (before Admin instructions?) but I think adding an extra subsection may require various templates to be changed from pointing to editing "section 11". Thincat ( talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I would like to propose a new speedy criterion C2G: reversal of a recent speedy renaming, to allow full discussion (some justification would need to be supplied). This would allow us to apply WP:BRD to the speedy CFD process, and is needed, in my view, since CFDS's 48 hours is VERY short, making it difficult for even WikiAddicts to stay on top of all the speedy renominations (note: "speedy" empty category deletion gets seven days, 3 1/2 times as long). I anticipate one objection: "recent" is intentionally not defined, and anyone could oppose a C2G nom as "not recent enough." Rather than throwing sand in the gears and lengthening the 48 hours for ALL speedy noms, I think this is better. But what say you: Support, Oppose this proposal? UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding name changes of film studios, sports teams or similar categories that while WP:C2D, create anachronistic categories and shouldn't qualify for a speedy move. After the Disney-Fox merger, Fox categories such as Category:20th Century Fox films and Category:Fox Searchlight Pictures films were moved to their new names, but then after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 75#Fox Searchlight Pictures categorizing were reverted back and the category tree was restructured with new and old names. This situation is exactly the same for sports teams. Placing a player like John Barber (basketball) who played for Minneapolis Lakers in a Category:Los Angeles Lakers is just flat out incorrect. I've been opposing these speedy moves, but there is no way I can keep up with the amount of weekly requests. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
multiple categories would not be helpful for navigation- navigation should be secondary to accuracy in this situation. It's just factually not correct, which is a problem. In addition, in most cases, name changes don't occur out of the blue. In sports it can mean a team moved a city (Minneapolis/Los Angles), in media like the above film example, a company merged/bought another company. That does not make those films "released by Disney" now, even-though Disney now does own them. The proper solution would just be to change the top most category per C2D, but leave the specific categories. So the top level category is now "Los Angels Lakers" (which is like the "franchise" category for a film franchise), then have "Los Angels Lakers players" and also "Minneapolis Lakers players" categories. This handles both C2D and accuracy. I agree, that a template like {{ G8-exempt}} is a good idea. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Consistency in category names and the main article is positively helpful in some hierarchies, e.g. music albums, because of the use of {{ albums category}} then automatically links to the main article, the head category and the songs category, e.g. Category:1927 (band) albums. In that example, we are committed to keeping the disambiguator "(band)" as part of all the related category names.
However, great minds have told us that
In other hierarchies we are rolling out consistency even where there is little apparent gain. For example, Terminator is a disambiguation page covering e.g. gene terminator as well as the famous film series and its spin-off media, whose main article therefore has to be Terminator (franchise). The main category is therefore likewise Category:Terminator (franchise). The debatable point is that WP:C2C is then invoked to rename all its sub-cats e.g. Category:Terminator films to Category:Terminator (franchise) films. IMHO this would result in longwinded and clumsy titles for insufficient gain.
I therefore propose that the disambiguator "(franchise)" should generally not be replicated into sub-category names for e.g. specific media types within a franchise hierarchy. Only the top category for that franchise needs to contain the word "(franchise)".
Likewise, similar disambiguators may also be excluded from the general requirement for consistency, e.g. the disambiguators "(film series)", "(TV series)" and "(video game series)" probably do not need to be replicated down to categories of characters, episodes etc, except where there is ambiguity at that level. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply)
04:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
However that "simple and obvious solution" is neither simple nor obvious. There are currently 4,787 categories which transclude Template:Albums category and are named with a parenthetical disambiguator. Consistency ensures that the templates generate cross-link automatically, but without consistency somebody has to manually check those cross-links to cats for EPs, singles, songs, songs written, etc. If those cross-links are not generated automatically, then there will be over 28,000 links to manually check and maintain. Is UnitedStatesian volunteering to all of that monitoring in perpetuity? Or just hoping that other editors will shoulder the burden created by that proposal? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)the simple and obvious solution to the affected albums categories would be just this: don't use the template on those categories
Does C2A apply to correcting obvious grammatical errors in category names? For example, changing Individual frogs toads to Individual frogs and toads? If so, can I add this bullet point? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet how pluralization of topic and set categories should be handled. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such change involves the distinction between topic and set categories.
A whole slew of categories were moved overnight from "Conservation in X" to "Nature Conservation in X" as a speedy move. Can someone direct to me to the discussion on this, as I sadly missed this? To take as an example, Category:Nature conservation in Scotland clearly includes both nature conservation and heritage/built environment, and the lead article, Conservation in Scotland, is written to reflect this. Grinner ( talk) 07:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, looking for some technical assistance from a CFD regular. Per this CfD, I'm looking to generate a list of every political party topical category that does not prefix the word "political" before "parties", i.e., something like the following list:
Extended content
|
---|
Category:Agrarian parties Category:Agrarian parties in Australia Category:Agrarian parties in Austria Category:Agrarian parties in Bulgaria Category:Agrarian parties in Canada Category:Agrarian parties in Costa Rica Category:Agrarian parties in Germany Category:Agrarian parties in Greece Category:Agrarian parties in Hungary Category:Agrarian parties in India Category:Agrarian parties in Ireland Category:Agrarian parties in Lithuania Category:Agrarian parties in Pakistan Category:Agrarian parties in Poland Category:Agrarian parties in Romania Category:Agrarian parties in Serbia Category:Agrarian parties in Slovenia Category:Agrarian parties in the Philippines Category:Agrarian parties in the United States Category:Agrarian parties in Ukraine Category:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party member parties Category:Anarchist parties Category:Anti-communist parties Category:Anti-communist parties in the Czech Republic Category:Anti-nationalist parties Category:Asturian nationalist parties Category:Banned communist parties Category:Banned socialist parties Category:Catalan nationalist parties Category:Celtic nationalist parties Category:Central committees of communist parties Category:Centrist parties Category:Centrist parties by continent Category:Centrist parties by country Category:Centrist parties in North America Category:Christian democratic parties Category:Christian democratic parties by continent Category:Christian democratic parties in North America Category:Classical liberal parties Category:Classical liberal parties in the United States Category:Communist parties Category:Communist parties by continent Category:Communist parties by country Category:Communist parties in North America Category:Congresses of communist parties Category:Conservative liberal parties Category:Conservative parties Category:Conservative parties by continent Category:Conservative parties by country Category:Defunct Communist parties Category:Defunct conservative parties Category:Defunct far-right parties Category:Defunct nationalist parties Category:Defunct social democratic parties Category:Defunct socialist parties Category:Democratic socialist parties Category:Democratic socialist parties in Africa Category:Democratic socialist parties in Asia Category:Democratic socialist parties in Europe Category:Democratic socialist parties in North America Category:Democratic socialist parties in Oceania Category:Democratic socialist parties in South America Category:Direct democracy parties Category:Direct democracy parties in the Czech Republic Category:Ecosocialist parties Category:Falangist parties Category:Fascist parties Category:Fascist parties in Belgium Category:Fascist parties in Chile Category:Fascist parties in France Category:Fascist parties in Germany Category:Fascist parties in Romania Category:Fascist parties in Russia Category:Fascist parties in Spain Category:Fascist parties in the Netherlands Category:Fascist parties in the United Kingdom Category:Federalist parties Category:Federalist parties by country Category:Feminist parties Category:Feminist parties by continent Category:Feminist parties by country Category:Feminist parties in North America Category:Galician nationalist parties Category:Georgist parties Category:Green conservative parties Category:Green parties by continent Category:Green parties in North America Category:Labor parties in the United States Category:Labour parties Category:Labour parties in Ireland Category:Labour parties in Scotland Category:Labour parties in the United Kingdom Category:Labour parties in Ukraine Category:Left-wing nationalist parties Category:Left-wing parties Category:Left-wing parties by country Category:Left-wing populist parties Category:Liberal conservative parties Category:Liberal conservative parties by country Category:Liberal parties Category:Liberal parties by continent Category:Liberal parties by country Category:Liberal parties in North America Category:Libertarian parties Category:Libertarian parties in Austria Category:Libertarian parties in Germany Category:Libertarian parties in the Czech Republic Category:Libertarian parties in the Netherlands Category:Libertarian parties in the United Kingdom Category:Libertarian parties in the United States Category:Libertarian socialist parties Category:Maoist parties Category:Marxist parties Category:Monarchist parties Category:Monarchist parties in Afghanistan Category:Monarchist parties in Albania Category:Monarchist parties in Burundi Category:Monarchist parties in Cambodia Category:Monarchist parties in France Category:Monarchist parties in Germany Category:Monarchist parties in Greece Category:Monarchist parties in Iran Category:Monarchist parties in Iraq Category:Monarchist parties in Italy Category:Monarchist parties in Japan Category:Monarchist parties in Monaco Category:Monarchist parties in Nepal Category:Monarchist parties in Portugal Category:Monarchist parties in Romania Category:Monarchist parties in Russia Category:Monarchist parties in Serbia Category:Monarchist parties in Spain Category:Monarchist parties in the Czech Republic Category:Monarchist parties in the Netherlands Category:National conservative parties Category:National liberal parties Category:Nationalist parties Category:Nationalist parties by continent Category:Nationalist parties by country Category:Nationalist parties by ethnic group Category:Nationalist parties in North America Category:Nazi parties Category:Neo-fascist parties Category:Non-interventionist parties Category:Nordic agrarian parties Category:Pacifist parties Category:Pacifist parties in the United Kingdom Category:Paleoconservative parties Category:Pirate parties Category:Populist parties Category:Pro-independence parties Category:Progressive parties Category:Progressive parties by country Category:Progressive parties in Taiwan Category:Prohibition parties Category:Radical parties Category:Radical parties in Chile Category:Radical parties in Italy Category:Regional parties in Germany Category:Regionalist parties Category:Regionalist parties in Croatia Category:Regionalist parties in France Category:Regionalist parties in Hungary Category:Regionalist parties in India Category:Regionalist parties in Italy Category:Regionalist parties in Romania Category:Regionalist parties in Spain Category:Regionalist parties in the Czech Republic Category:Regionalist parties in the Netherlands Category:Regionalist parties in the Philippines Category:Regionalist parties in the United Kingdom Category:Regionalist parties in Ukraine Category:Republican parties Category:Republican parties in Cambodia Category:Republican parties in Spain Category:Republican parties in the United Kingdom Category:Right-wing parties Category:Right-wing parties by continent Category:Right-wing parties by country Category:Right-wing parties in North America Category:Right-wing populist parties Category:Ruling Communist parties Category:Secretariats of communist parties Category:Social conservative parties Category:Social credit parties Category:Social credit parties in Canada Category:Social democratic parties Category:Social democratic parties by country Category:Social democratic parties in Africa Category:Social democratic parties in Asia Category:Social democratic parties in Europe Category:Social democratic parties in North America Category:Social democratic parties in Oceania Category:Social democratic parties in South America Category:Social liberal parties Category:Social liberal parties in Argentina Category:Social liberal parties in the United States Category:Socialist parties Category:Socialist parties by continent Category:Socialist parties by country Category:Socialist parties in North America Category:Sri Lankan Tamil nationalist parties Category:Stalinist parties Category:Student wings of communist parties Category:Student wings of conservative parties Category:White nationalist parties Category:Women's wings of Communist parties Category:Worker-communist parties Category:Youth wings of communist parties Category:Youth wings of conservative parties Category:Youth wings of Green parties Category:Youth wings of liberal parties Category:Youth wings of social democratic parties
|
I'm figuring someone has a more complete method for pulling a printout of all subcategories. My above jury-rigged approach was based on the API but is incomplete (i.e., doesn't go deep enough). If useful as context, the idea is to feed this list into DannyS712's bot for a bundled nomination clarifying that these are "political" parties, per their parent category. czar 02:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a loss with this situation so looking for advice. This CfD has been open since June and would appear to have consensus that "Anarchist parties" is an ambiguous title (are the parties anarchist?), to be clarified as "Anarchist political parties". There is a standing/reasonable objection that similar categories be changed as well, except that such a nomination would be ponderous. With thanks to Oculi, a generated list of applicable categories for the bundle is too unwieldy for a single nom. What is the best way forward? czar 17:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I just saw this and I was left wondering who decides whether a book is popular or not. -- uKER ( talk) 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Page mover § Moving categories.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Naming of navbox categories. — andrybak ( talk) 14:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)