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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
We all know that this is a gross breach of procedure, but where does policy actually say this? The category Category:Remarried royal consorts was set up today and quite heavily populated. User:Surtsicna thinks the category is trivial, non-defining etc, and just emptied it (with help from others). When I pointed out this was wrong, he asked where it says so. I have spent longer than should be necessary trying and failing to find a statement of this in relevant piolicy pages. Obviously, if this is allowed it circumvents most of the point of CFD. Wherever such a statement may be, it needs to be far more prominent, and repeated in various places. If (amazingly) there is no plain statement of this long-standing consensus, we need one urgently. Places where I can't see such a statement, and ought to, include WP:CFD, Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization - it ought to be easy to find at all of these. User:Surtsicna is a very long-standing editor, but appears completely unaware that what he has done is wrong. Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
But we don’t limit categories to “why” someone is notable.Hmm? -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
If we had a speedy criterion for "category created without any parent categories" (with an exception for Category:Contents) then that would have applied in this particular case. Categories created without any parent categories are almost always bad ones. User:Johnbod - if there had been such a CSD option would you have used it in this case (rather than "legitimising" the category by adding parent categories)? Or if another editor (e.g. Surtsicna) had CSDed it would you have objected? DexDor (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's my take: If a category exists, any articles clearly and verifiably meeting its definition should not be removed from it so long as the inclusion of the article in the category does not violate any policies or guidelines. Instead, you should nominate the category for deletion if you disagree with its existence. Note that diffusion, defined as removing an article from a category and adding it to one or more subcategories of that category, is not considered removal for the purpose of this guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
In the case of 1 I think editors should generally feel free to do this since this can often be done under WP:BURDEN. Though editors should probably consider using CFD for cases where more than say 5 or 10 articles are in the category or its otherwise likely to be controversial. An example of this was Ashgill Force being in Category:Waterfalls in Alston, Cumbria (its only member) but its not in Alston [1] but actually over 4 miles from it! The category was later deleted 13 days later, then Category:Landforms of Alston, Cumbria was deleted 8 days later and then Category:Geography of Alston, Cumbria 8 days later.
In the case of 2 I think it maybe should be frowned upon to do this but again unless the category is large or otherwise its likely to be controversial it probably shouldn't be prohibited. Given that the Remarried royal consorts category has 38 members its reasonable to say its large enough to be worth discussing. I removed the only member from Category:Buildings in Larbert which was deleted and I did that because I didn't think its a good idea to have a town of that size with a separate "buildings in" category. If someone had objected it would only be a matter of reverting that 1 edit. Going back to the Remarried royal consorts category what happens in the case of a "no consensus" in a CFD while I think its fine to leave a category you disagree with in an article for a week or 2 but if the CFD is closed as no consensus shouldn't the category be removed from the articles per BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS although there may be no consensus to delete the category its self there would be no consensus for the edits to the existing articles to include it. There's a current example of Category:Villages in Aberdeen where an editor removed all 4 members of it (there is discussion at User talk:188.28.158.163 and Talk:Cults, Aberdeen#Village or Suburb) should the editor there have started a CFD or just reverted per BRD? Note that there are at least 4 other villages in Aberdeen that don't yet have articles but probably could do (or at least redirects).
As far as an actual rule against removing all categories for reasons 1 or 2 I don't know how you could enforce it. Would this mean that editors would be prohibited from removing all members of a category? Also in the case of 1 an editor might not have even looked at the category its self and might remove a sole member from a category which results in it being empty. Also note that in comparison with CFDS where categories meeting C2F can be merged/deleted after just 2 days a category that has been emptied "out of process" has to be left for 7 days before being deleted, the same time as a standard CFD. Furthermore the watchlist now has an option to show page categorization so the author or anyone otherwise interested can see if someone removes members (I have this enabled).
A further point to consider is apart from 1 and 2 above and categories populated by templates the only other way a category can end up empty is when all its members end up getting deleted (or redirected without keeping the categories) which doesn't happen that often so if we have an issue with people emptying categories maybe we should consider removing C1? Thoughts @ Johnbod and BrownHairedGirl:. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Taking into account the comments above, I'd propose adding to WP:CAT:
To Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, perhaps just add:
Support as proposer, and notes. I thought it necessary to add that removing cats duplicated at levels in a tree per OCAT is ok - this is very likely the most common reason cats are removed from articles. For the FAQ page, there is already: "(header) How do I delete a category? (text) If you feel a category falls within Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, bring it up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion." -this should be added after that I think. Johnbod ( talk) 14:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
If a category is considered inappropriate as a whole, it should not be emptied, but a deletion discussion started at WP:CFD.IMHO there should be some room left for the situation when removing articles not clearly meeting the category definition (i.e. purging) leaves no article in the category, making it eligible to speedy deletion per C1. Another situation is when a new category has been created and filled by articles out of best practices (i.e. in a way that another editor legitimately objects), in which case reversing questionable inclusions per BRD is allowed. Lastly, the proposed wording does not make mention of speedy criteria according to which a category can be deleted, which confusingly are split between WP:Criteria for speedy deletion § General, WP:Criteria for speedy deletion § Categories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy § Speedy criteria. I therefore think that the proposed wording should be amended to explicitly mention purging, BRD and speedy deletion, without making it too bloat though. Let's be clear: legitimate maintenance actions (such as merely applying the definition of a category to articles inside it, or applying WP:CATDEF) should not be discouraged; what should be discouraged is deliberate attempts to game the system by removing clearly eligible articles (according e.g. to WP:CATDEF) from a category in order to bypass CFD. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I originally tagged this category for speedy deletion on Nov. 14 based on WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion last year in CFD. The editors who take their time to review Category:Candidates for speedy deletion may be more familiar with AfD though and good use a hand reviewing this speedy request. Thanks. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've been fairly sporadic for a very long time, and don't know the current landscape. Although I'm utterly amazed that BrownHairedGirl and Good Olfactory and Carlossuarez (and others) are still keeping the flame alive after all these years.
Johnpacklambert (
talk ·
contribs) has emptied categories that s/he has nominated, and target categories that were suggested for merger. We've had multiple examples in the past month. S/he is an experienced wikipedian, so I'd expected better behavior. What is the best response?
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 00:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Category:China Shipping Group has been brought to deletion review. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the DRV entry Thank you. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Just wanting to make sure I did this right.. this category was recently recreated by a user, despite the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants which resulted in its deletion. I believe that the speedy deletion tag was correct, as it was unpopulated, and actually contained a table (can be viewed here) which is not for category pages like this. Again, just wanting to check and make sure I handled this correctly. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa ( talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I remember that categories that are "performers in a show" were deprecated years ago and fall under WP:PERFCAT. What I don't remember is if any of the speedy deletes apply or if a CFD is needed for newly created categories like Category:Twin Peaks cast members. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 00:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What (if anything) does "delete without prejudice to re-creation" mean? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover that we have around 100k "soft" category redirects. In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Redirecting_categories it says that this is 'because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects', but I think that's outdated information since a simple test seems to work OK. Probably there is something I'm missing here as to why these can't be done as normal redirects? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Just as I filed a bunch of speedy requests for Croatia, I realized a bunch more at Category:Faculty by university or college in Europe. What's the best way to autogenerate a list of all renamings that would stem from that? It seems like that would that need to move out of the speedy category, because with such a wide scope there could well be other options on the table - I see already that the UK category uses the word "academics"... -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Please could any talk page watchers advise on the best venue for a more general discussion of changes to subcategories of Category:Faculty by university or college? Would an advisory WP:RFC make sense, to be followed by a CFD nomination? Joy has found WP:RFCNOT which explicitly says that renaming categories should not be done using the RFC process. TSventon ( talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a template analogous to {{
Old XfD multi}}, so multiple {{
Old CfD}}'s can be reorganized into a single talk page block? You might wonder why not use old xfd multi, but alas, it does not support the |action=
parameter needed to support other discussions than categories for deletion (such as categories for renaming)
CapnZapp (
talk) 11:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't worked in category creation in quite a while but I'm sure this question has come up before. What century can we say that "nationalities" began? I've been working with some Korean occupational categories by century and so I thought I'd see when nationality started to be a category to classify occupational categories of people on Wikipedia.
In my brief search, I found it goes back to Category:6th-century BC people by nationality and occupation. But is this determined country by country, kingdom by kingdom? The nation state is really a product of the Enlightenment so I'm not sure whether we can talk about 5th or 12th century nations in the modern sense. But I don't know what other general classification can be used for medieval Japan, Korea, Spain, India or England. Or should we just stick with what works right now?
My apologies, in advance, if this is a perennial question. When I did a search for nationality at CFD, it brought up specific categories and this is a more general question. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, here is a less ambitious query. In this category, most countries call schools for older students "secondary schools" but a few countries in this category call them "high schools and secondary schools". Should the terminology be standardized across countries to one or the other term? Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The Lutheran churches of Finland, Denmark, and Norway call their clergy pastors, not priests
https://evl.fi/the-church/organisation/parishes
https://evl.fi/current-issues/women-ordained-for-thirty-years
https://kirken.no/nb-NO/church-of-norway/about/basics-and-statistics/
https://www.lutheranchurch.dk/who-we-are/who-works-in-the-church -- Espoo ( talk) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Espoo: did you read my post at 17:47, 29 March 2021 and 19:56, 29 March 2021? I think the answer is to request a merge of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran clergy and so on. Category:Lutheran clergy by nationality has 26 national subcategories and only Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have Lutheran priests sub sub categories, so I think that merger would be consistent with the other 22 countries. Category:Danish Christian clergy is the category that contains Danish pastors, priests and other clergy. TSventon ( talk) 22:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that April Fools-related CfD discussions be split to another page, in the fashion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021. Thanks, 2001:569:7B92:5500:B02B:997B:1CF9:16F5 ( talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, is there any kind of new category patrolling system, WikiProject, etc. similar to WP:NPP? Or do CfD nominations mostly come from people encountering a category by chance that they feel needs discussion? I ask mainly since at WP:AFC/RC there are occasionally some borderline category requests. I'm curious if there is a second set of eyes that might see an AfC-created category like a standard AfC article (provided the AfC reviewer isn't autopatrolled/admin). Thanks, 2pou ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Category:Mike McGear songs, I suspect that there are precedents for deleting categories of songs which only contain redirects, but I can't remember them or think how to trace them. @ Good Olfactory: Do you recall such, or have any lists that could help, please? – Fayenatic London 20:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
-- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Amended -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Similarly to how {{ Rfd2}} places anchors to the nominated redirects, it would make sense if {{ Cfd2}} and similar added an anchor to the names of the nominated categories. This would make merging nominations, especially ones started using a tool like Twinkle, easier, as the {{ Cfd}} template on the respective category page will continue to link to a nonexistent section by default. If no-one objects, I will place an edit request to edit the template-protected pages and implement the change myself at {{ Cfs2}}, which is weirdly the only unprotected template of this sort. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Category:Mononymous people - Coagulans ( talk) 10:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As I previously said to the user who deleted it, I do not agree with the deletion of Wikipedian WikiOgres relying on an unclear and disputed 13 years old discussion. We currently have categories for 56 WikiBears, 93 WikiCats, 4 WikiDragons, 425 WikiFairies, thousands of WikiGnomes, 86 WikiGryphons, 30 WikiHobbits, 52 WikiJanitors, 24 Hyphen Luddites, 10 WikiTigers and 4 WikiSquirrels. There are more than 300 WikiOgres here, why can't them be treated equally? Thanks, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please implement the relisting. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello I've nominated Category:Exclude in print for conversion along with other nonfunctional print handling systems at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:Hide in print. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of the Congo and noticed that some treat the name as starting with an "R" and some with a "C". What is the correct convention here? Gonnym ( talk) 10:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
@ Talk:Slavery#Things to do discussed 8 already existing slavery related lists and 7 potential lists.
Is it possible to have some thing like Category:Lists related to slavery to cover all slavery related lists?
I am unaware of categorization related rules and where to put request. Please can some one help out in this respect.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 05:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Political prisoners, and ensuing fuss, I am reminded of an old proposal:
Alternatively:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Category:Political party colour templates was closed August 19 but the categories haven't been moved. Gonnym ( talk) 13:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have just started:
Ugh, then I see that I should not have added the "the"; I should have called them
Is there a quick way to change this? Or do I need to do it by hand? Huldra ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Coming across this bot edit, it appears that there was an error in the closure of the CfD. Instead of merging the Thai people categories to Category:Thai people of Chinese descent, the bot instead merged to Category:Thai politicians of Chinese descent ( contribs). Is there a relatively easy way to fix this semi-automatically? (I originally asked at User talk:Good Olfactory, who doesn't appear to be currently active.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It was suggested on the talk page for Gollum from The Lord of the Rings that the Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities category is malformed in its current state and needs to be reworked to only include accurate depictions of dissociative identity disorder, with the characters who do not meet the real-world diagnostic criteria -- for example, the Hulk or Sam Raimi's iteration of the Green Goblin -- should be removed using the precedent set by Gollum -- whose removal was predicated on a 2004 psychology paper saying that Gollum can't have dissociative identity disorder due to his split personalities being aware of one another and capable of interacting with each other. 2001:569:F875:3D00:510C:3AC8:DC1:83AD ( talk) 22:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anybody knows what happened with the discussion that I had started about several Mass media subcategories, which seems to have disappeared without a trace. I know that I posted a response to @ Oculi:'s concerns a couple of weeks back, and that @ Fayenatic london: had also posted a response. Unfortunately, we suffered a power outage here {thanks, PG&E) before I had time/opportunity to post any further comments -- and quite honestly, I forgot about the whole thing after we got our power back on. So I'm hoping somebody can shed light on what happened to the missing discussion. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 09:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
For reasons which I don’t need to bore anyone with, I am anxious for both these articles Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet and Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, to have categories which make it immediately clear that the baronetcy is extinct. This is currently not the case. Yesterday I added Category:Extinct baronetcies|Great Britain to their pages. This was instantly reverted. The following Asgill baronets explains clearly that the baronetcy became extinct in 1823, but how do I insert a category which links to that? Is there any solution to my problem? Anne ( talk) 08:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I have trouble imagining a scenario where it needs to be made clear in the article of a long-dead baronet, through categories, that their baronetcy is extinct; this is not a defining characteristic of the person, but of the baronetcy itself, and is already found because the baronetcy is in Category:Extinct baronetcies in the Baronetage of Great Britain. On the article of the last baronet, this is indicated by the succession box (at the bottom, right above the categories) stating "extinct": on the articles of earlier baronets, this is normally not important at all, or can be incorporated in the text if truly necessary ("the baronetcy became extinct in XXXX after the death of his son/grandson/whatever"). Categories are not a tool to record every minute detail, and this doesn't seem like a good candidate for a more detailed category. Fram ( talk) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to work out whether it is worth writing some reports on categories. I think many are inaccurate reports as not all articles are assigned. So
And is the information in info boxes more likely to be accurate than the category? Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 00:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 06:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct venue as I seem to have wandered into a meander of redirects to get here....
I've noticed quite a few recent category moves to correct erroneous use of sex instead of gender, such as "Female Fooian writers" being moved to "Women Fooian writers". This however seems to be a fairly random process which I think could be streamlined and done more systematically by including "incorrect categorization by sex instead of gender" as an explicit speedy criterion and even doing it (semi-)automatically by bot or script. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
that "women" is more accurate (see Sex and gender distinction) and because it's the only way to ensure consistency: "women" refers to both cisgender and transgender women, so when "female" is used to describe that group, the word is just being used colloquially to mean "women".I'm not convinced at all by this - I don't believe there's any consensus view that transgender women are women, but they're not female. And speaking of accuracy, an article about a 6-year-old singer would be much more at home in a category called "Female singers" than "Women singers". My bigger question, though, is the same one Northernhenge has, about the process by which this mass change occurred. Was there a discussion about it, or did you just decide by yourself to make this change? Korny O'Near ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It is in fact by definition wrong to use "female/male" instead of "woman/man" for people except when discussing them in biological terms.This may be your opinion or normative view, but I think it finds little support in actual usage (or in lexicographic authorities, for that matter). The OED entry for female includes senses like "Of or relating to a woman or girl.", "Engaged in or exercised by women; done by women.", "Of a quality, attribute, etc.: peculiar to or characteristic of a woman or women." etc. These senses are plainly still in current use. e.g. This BBC article talks about a reality show having a "predominantly young and female audience particularly valuable to advertisers" - there's no salient biological context here, they're just saying its viewership includes lots of young women. Like many words, female has multiple definitions. The relevant definition at any given juncture will depend on context. It's like asking whether a tomato is a fruit, or whether a strawberry is a berry. There is no one universal "correct" answer - it depends on whether we're speaking in a biological context, a culinary context, an agricultural context, etc. Colin M ( talk) 23:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I don't have a dog in the category naming dispute at issue here, but did want to point out two principles that apply generally: (1) except where recent RS take a different approach (e.g., awards given pre-transition), WP uses the latest reliably sourced self-ID of BLP subjects to categorize them, and never any other principle of classification (e.g., sex assigned at birth); and (2) "women" and "female" are both, in the context of category names, labels for gender rather than sex (again with limited exceptions such as "women's reproductive health"). That is all. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to voice my strong opposition to this change, and I completely agree with Colin M that using the word "female" to refer to anything belonging to or relating to women in general is completely normal. I fail to see how anyone could be confused by someone like Laura Jane Grace, as an example, being referred to as a "female guitarist". That is an accurate description. Words like "female" and "male" simply do not, in common parlance, always refer to biology, and insisting that they do is both annoyingly prescriptivist and verging on transphobic. I'd also say that the fact that far more changes seem to have been made on this front to category titles using the word "female" rather than those using the word "male" seems like a wild double standard. Perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourselves with the concepts of transmisogyny and cissexism. Gravelove ( talk) 01:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian has proposed deletion of
Category:Alumni by educational institution and its thousands of subcategories at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#Category:Alumni by educational institution. I would like to request assistance with tagging all the subcategories with {{
subst:Cfd|CfD section name}}
as suggested by
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to. Any further advice would also be welcome.
TSventon (
talk) 21:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking for someone more knowledgeable than I to address the following questions.
I was previously using Category:Rusyns drafts to organize a list of drafts for the management of WikiProject WP:CRUE. An admin informed me that this is not allowed per WP:DRAFTNOCAT. I opened a discussion with them on their talk page and explained that based on my reading of WP:PROJCATS, I believed that their understanding was incorrect. They encouraged me to reach out to WP:CFD for comment.
The category in question is now deleted, but I am pursuing this because I would like to reinstate it.
The discussion (which contains greater detail) can be found here.
KaerbaqianRen[ talk ] 05:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rusyns/Drafts/
, you can get a list of them all at
Special:PrefixIndex (
example). You can also programmatically output a list of such pages using the template {{
PrefixIndex}}
.
Colin M (
talk) 23:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Please, check the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#WP Gender studies. Thanks, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Input on potential Category:American same-sex marriage opponents or similar, any input is appreciated. Would like to have some sort of rough consensus that such a category is workable before creating it. Apologies for not listing it here originally! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Fayenatic, Dicklyon, other watchers, I forget how this has been dealt with previously, but could large batches of uncontroversial requests be collapsed or given their own section to make it easier to navigate the other requests? TSventon ( talk) 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [ talk 00:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I am facing this problem with Ukrainian categories, because Ukraine had an administrative reform in 2020. I was recently told that there are similar problems for Latvia, which had a similar reform last year. Let me pick up an example of Ukraine and explain what the problem is. The reform reduced the number of raions - the second-level administrative units - so that some raions were merged in the bigger raions (and some of these bigger raions were newly created, and some were existing earlier but were significantly expanded as a result of the reform). Some raions were actually split as a result of the reform - for example, Kitsman Raion was split between Vyzhnytsia Raion and Chernivtsi Raion, Chernivtsi Oblast. Now, we have at least two problems.
Categorization is supposed to capture defining qualities ( WP:CATDEF). It seems to me that people by location should be defined by how secondary sources characterize them, and I assume this is typically is their nationality or their place of birth. Taras Shevchenko was a Ukrainian author, subject of the Russian empire, born in Moryntsi. Does anyone know or care what raion he is from? I imagine raion might only be significant for people born in a rural location not associated with a village. — Michael Z. 22:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If a category is renamed using speedily renaming, are the articles in that category automatically recategorized to the new category name? I know there a bots that will do this for soft redirect categories, but will that happen automatically for renaming? Needless to say I don't want to ask to rename a category and then have to edit all the articles in that category. Coastside ( talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I want to rename all categories in this category Category:Shinto cults from x faith to x cult, because they are about cults of specific deities. I believe calling them "faith" is a mistranslation from google translate, and that it mistakenly implies that something like the Tenjin faith is an independent religion like the Baháʼí Faith, whereas all of these groups are more like Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Regular participants at CFD may be missing the way that nominations, including rationales, used to be indented using colons. Apparently that was unhelpful for accessibility, see Template talk:Cfd2#Remove leading colons. I have now amended the CFD templates to include {{ Block indent}}, as will be seen when editing new discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Speedy rename and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Wikipedia:Speedy rename until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I think those categories are misnamed.
etc.
There are many other resonances, those categories only apply to resonance with Neptune.
-- Io Herodotus ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I must be missing something obvious but I can't see how to nominate for speedy deletion two categories that I have just created (due to a misunderstanding of the effect of template:LBE). Could someone point me in the right direction, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Determine which speedy criterion appliesGot that one: G7.
Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}How is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename? Ok, let's assume that this instruction doesn't apply and ignore it.
List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this pageSo I go to "Current requests" where I find
Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here. Again, how is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago the "ANSI standards" cat was speedied to "American National Standards Institute standards", a name which is used by precisely zero people on the planet earth. Unfortunately, the speedy page has no search function, so I cannot find the discussion of why this occurred.
In any event, to avoid having everyone solve this problem the hard way (a deletion warning on page create), is it reasonable to have a redir for this cat? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The question is how to make a redir. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Do we still need the message on top "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators."? I think the table with number of open discussions per month should suffice. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Under C2A, the sentence "This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" is awkward. The word "such" seems out of place, and "when the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" seems badly phrased. We know what the distinction is. The issue arises when it might be debatable which of those a particular category is. I propose replacing the sentence with "This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category". Largoplazo ( talk) 23:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Just checking ... since me, a non-admin, cannot edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, closing discussion to "rename/move" is considered a WP:BADNAC??? If so, dang ... no wonder WP:CFD has such a massive backlog. Also, technically, non-admins listing their closes on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is a WP:BADNAC since administrators have to respond to the requests on the talk page for their closes to be listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
User:LaundryPizza03 reverted my bold edit and while it is not a big deal to me I will explain the two underlying reasons anyway:
Category:Lists of Disney television series episodes was nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Disney Channel related-lists by MegaSmike46 ( talk · contribs) on July 15, but it doesn't appear that they ever added the entry to WP:CFD as required. Is it appropriate to remove the CFR tag on the category at this point, or can the request be completed by updating the CFD page? Note that I intend to oppose this request as I feel the proposal changes the meaning of the category. DonIago ( talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
List of garden features and the entirely nonhierarchical template at the bottom of it both look like they might be better as categories. Eyecatchers might also benefit. Of course, subcats in the template and additional information or index images in the list article would also be good, but at the moment both are flat category-like lists. I'm really not fashed about what structure is used, whatever works for the person doing it. I'm posting this here in hopes someone might have a clever (perhaps semi-automated) way to do this sort of thing, as I don't think I'll be doing it. HLHJ ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
{{ admin backlog}} I've noticed that CFD tends to move way slower than the other CFD proposals, and items often fail to get relisted. Take for instance this nomination. It was relisted on the 18th and has clearly gone stale, as no one else has even looked at it in 15 days. This one has been open since the 15th and should clearly be closed as there is no opposition. It seems like every time I file a CFD, it tends to progress far slower than any other XFD. Does anyone know why they tend to run slower, and what could be done to speed them up? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a "Dummies Guide" to closing CfD discussions because I've read over the instructions several times over the past few years and found them intimidating enough that I never started doing closings, which I was trying to comply with. I note that she later promised that
It's on [her] "To Do" list to try to take on some more simple closures next monthand never followed through (
next monthrefers to February) Poorly-written instructions aside, CfD closing is necessarily more complicated that most other types of discussion closure because implementing the result isn't just making one edit or admin action. TfD, the only other forum with that property, is really only staying above water because most nominations are entirely uncontroversial. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization § RfC: should templates and template categories roll up into related content categories. — andrybak ( talk) 21:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Books by publisher has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Posting notice here for open, undiscussed RfC — Wingedserif ( talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_18#Category:Basketball_players_at_the_2022_NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Final_Four user:Namiba nominated from 2022 back to 2006, but IIUC Category:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year and the rest of its sub-cats should also now be nominated for deletion, and so should Category:NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Does C2A cover renamings due to incorrect pluralization? For example, if there was a category "Attorney Generals of Missouri" which *should* be "Attorneys General of Missouri" (the one that I've found is actually for an Inspector General) Naraht ( talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Marcocapelle, @ Fayenatic london, I won't be on Wikipedia for a few days, from Friday to Sunday or Monday, so I won't be able to close CfDs for the next few days. Just a heads up. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Shipbuilding companies of the United States
Category:Shipyards of the United States
Category:Shipyards in California
Category:Shipbuilding companies of California
the left hand categorically does not know what the right hand does?
Then there is another problem. Sorting by state is not best. Portland and Vancouver shipyards on the Columbia and Willamette River are in spitting distance, but the Vancouver yards would end up in the same category as yards in Seattle.
Same for certain Shipyards in New York Harbor that get mixed together with yards on the Delaware River, because the state of New Jersey touches both.
Nowakki ( talk) 22:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
i don't see a consensus there. also somebody was "not thrilled" by the word major. also, there was not even a reply to arguments i made.
nothing happened and somebody just renamed it anyway? is this how it works?
i am not thrilled by the word "major" not being included. that's the whole point of the category. Nowakki ( talk) 15:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
not one of them put into words their feelings about the word "major", how else do you interpret
certainly remove "major" from the category name. You may personally believe the result should have been otherwise, but consensus (from experienced CfD participants) was against you. They clearly articulated their reasoning, so it was not
vague intuitions. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised that the Linguists from Foo categories, recently CFDS'ed by Oculi and moved to processing by Timrollpickering, went through without anyone noticing/objecting. (Unfortunately I wasn't watching any of the affected category pages.) The previous Linguists from Foo naming scheme was the result of a 2012 CfD, and should not have been overridden by CFDS. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 17:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Update: Renaming already reversed by Fayenatic london, now under WP:CFDS#Opposed requests. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:English-language education
Somehow today's closing was misinterpreted.
The kept Category:English-language education was renamed to Category:Education by language.
Please revert that mistaken renaming, and then instead rename
Category:Language education by language to
Category:Education by language as written.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I will potentially need help at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 16#Category:Non-fiction with respect to listing/tagging the plethora of appropriate subcats of Category:Non-fiction. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Categorizing events by venue
Having lost at CfD repeatedly, and opposed again on the Talk, the user has attempted a non-conforming RFC.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I just cleaned up this whole tree as there were a number of article where the text had been updated about the building's completion but the old category remained. Four of the subcats each had just 1 article and all 4 of those buildings were completed so I inadvertently emptied the subcats for Idaho, Puerto Rico, Guam and Bus stations which were created by @ Good Olfactory, BrownHairedGirl, and Hugo999:.
Since I just updated the articles in good faith I'm assuming I can let the categories be automatically deleted without making a CFD nomination. (But I bet every reckless editor who empties a category out of process tells themself the same thing!)
If I should take a different approach, let me know. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I have made a WP:BOLD change to WP:C2F from "one eponymous article" to "one eponymous page", and extended the specified cases to include one eponymous template. [2] – Fayenatic London 15:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice that per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#RfC: Name of the small country nestled within Senegal should probably result in Category:The Gambia sub-category renames as well. Gonnym ( talk) 11:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There's a proposal on the main page here to speedily move a category. Someone has opposed the speedy move, and given a rationale. I'd like to say something in favor of the move. But the discussion is now under the heading "Opposed requests." What's the proper way to put in my 2 cents? Do I do it right where it is, or do I move the discussion somewhere? Uporządnicki ( talk) 19:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you guys have juristiciaon over userbox categories, or is that under MfD? User:Crainsaw 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Fayenatic London, do you know if rcats should be discussed here or at TfD? Asking in relation to this TfD discussion about an rcat. — Qwerfjkl talk 19:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I think they're pretty much like any maintenance cat. If the populating template is deleted, then the associated cat can typically be speedied - housekeeping, empty, whatever. - jc37 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I am getting bombarded with mass proposals of deletion of categories I created, work alone that took me many hours. I find it unreasonable because I cannot be on top of all of them at the same time and cannot have time to populate them when that's the concern. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there draft space for categories to see how a tree works out? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Category:Rcat template documentation pages this was closed but I don't see the category in the /working sub-page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed the 6 June CfD to merge sports clubs and teams categories, and I wonder if this is an issue overlooked by the participants: Many of the articles under the sports clubs categories are sports clubs in the sense of country clubs or similar social venues, not competitive clubs/teams. As a result of the CfD, Category:Golf clubs and courses is now under the combined Category:Sports clubs and teams. Is this as desired? Or should such categories and articles be removed and placed under the venues tree instead (if not already there)? Pinging discussion participants Aidan721, Bearcat, Marcocapelle, Pelmeen10, Laurel Lodged and Fayenatic london. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Currently in the CfD pages there is a heading of the date as a sub-heading 1, and each individual discussion has a sub-heading 2. For example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 8, has === July 8 ===, and the first discussion is ==== Category:People from Drogheda, County Down ====.
In order to facilitate discussions, I propose instead:
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
{{ Cfd notice}} works when a single category is nominated, but what can be used for a mass nomination? — Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Considering that C2D is used not only for categories under a main article, but also for categories under a main template, or a main project page (e.g., WikiProjects). Hence, I think that C2D should be reworded from the current "Consistency with main article's name" to something more inclusive. Thoughts? — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
As suggested by Marcocapelle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_19#Category:Broods, let's have a new speedy criterion to allow deletion of a musician category if it only contains a main article plus songs sub-cat and albums sub-cat. Such a category needs to be nominated for manual merging only of the main article if required, and would need to be manually deleted because the {{ albums category}} & {{ songs category}} templates on the sub-cats will populate it as long as it exists.
This could be set up as a special case of WP:C2F, or a new separate criterion. I suggest the nomination should use a new template. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Couiros22: This should not have been moved as dolphins are not fish. It's quite possible that some of the similar categories requested also have non-fish, but even if they don't, they could in time have non-fish such as molluscs or corals added to them, so should remain. I believe that the fish categories should instead subcat from the fauna categories. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 01:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, per precedent I'd like to mass-nominate Category:People by language family of descent and all its subcategories with either "language family", "Turkic" or "Slavic" in it, but nothing else. How do I do that easily without making it a tedious manual task? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated a set of categories to rename last month at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Enigmatic taxa, but have since found out just too late that I set the wrong new names for two of the categories:
As you can see the two target categories for these two are paired with the wrong original categories. Unfortunately since the discussion has already been closed, the bot has already gone through all these categories as of writing, and for whatever reason renamed the first one back shortly after (???). (Edit: and has renamed the second one to its correct target, is this bot being manually controlled or can it detect these kinds of errors?)
What's the best way to deal with this kind of error? Is there a process for fixing this kind of error straight away (I'm actually not sure if the speedy renaming criteria apply here though), or do these have to be sent back through Cfd all over again? (Honestly I'm a bit disappointed nobody else caught this error of mine, let alone before closure of the discussion) Monster Iestyn ( talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, using Twinkle I just nominated a category ( Category:Eogeometer, for those interested) for speedy merging because it meets C2F (one eponymous page). However, I found Twinkle didn't notify the article creator about this action, and nor can I find a suitable template for notifying an interested editor about speedy merging of a category ( Template:Cfd notice doesn't seem suited as far as I can tell). Is there such a template to use? Or should I not worry about notifying the article creator in this case? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with
Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say,
Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as
Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself. Scratching post for now. This needs completely different angle of approach.
౪ Santa ౪
99° 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled on this old discussion
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories whose conclusion says what it says, and most of the subcats contain a Hatnote that alert editors what to do and how to use these cats and its subcats, but then I checked few random subcategories in Category:Racism (including above mentioned Antisemitism / Islamophobia in the UK) and it appears only those concerning Islamophobia are emptied and watched over. This discrepancy problem won't be easy to correct since it comprises who knows how many articles and subcategories, maybe many hundreds.
These categories were moved under C2D following page moves which were reversed before the categories were moved. The page moves have been reversed and a Requested Move is in progress so the category moves may need to be reversed if the articles are not moved again
TSventon ( talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I've started a draft for a tutorial on closing CfDs. It is by no means finished, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether this entire category tree shouldn't be nuked. There generally won't be any notable "media" in a "franchise" that aren't "mass", and this category tree and its propagation down to things like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) mass media with subcats like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) films makes it very difficult to find the works that are completely central to the franchise to begin with. Plus all this extraneous injection of "(franchise)". It just led to a categorization editwar at Blade Runner, and there are probably other instances, but just making the categories a confusing and frustrating waste of time for readers is the main issue.
I'm opening this for some general discussion first before launching a large-scale CfD, in case there's some really, really compelling reason for this mess that I somehow can't see yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
C2F, for an eponymous category with no content but the eponym itself, is listed here as a speedy deletion criterion — but it is not available as a deletion rationale in the drop-down menu if I actually try to delete a category on those grounds, meaning that I have to manually come to the list of speedy deletion criteria to refresh my memory of what its section code even is before I can delete a category on those grounds. Is there any way to get it added to the drop-downs? Bearcat ( talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 ( talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Should the M be capitalized in Category:Foreign Ministers of Germany or Category:Foreign ministers of Gabon. The categories are very inconsistent. Note, this also affects the equivalent categories for Defense Minister/minister. Naraht ( talk) 03:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns ... They are capitalized only in the following cases:
When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural (my, DB1729's, emphasis), is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan.
The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it.
Note that for "president of the United States" or "prime minister of the United Kingdom", the name of the country remains capitalized even when the title is not, as it is always a proper noun. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs).— MOS:JOBTITLE
All Categories starting with "Foreign Minister of" should be changed to "Foreign minister of" based on MOS:JOBTITLE since not about a single person as a Job Title. Naraht ( talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
If I !vote "oppose" to a Speedy, should I move that item into the "Opposed requests" section? Or will this be done according to a review / timed cleanup process? Thanks for the information. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Before listing merges at WP:CFDW, please check whether parent categories or other page contents need to be merged. In this set (which happened to be from the Speedy page), some additional parents and portals needed to be merged. Unusually, for that set, there was a category header template, and the missing page content could be incorporated into that. Normally, any missing parents or other content have to be added manually. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This discussion was closed 10 days ago but the category is yet to be moved. Is their something I am supposed to do to move it? I thought a bot performed to move automatically. ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk) 12:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Quick question: I believe there are rules against emptying categories that have been nominated for deletion (or merging), but apart from
WP:C2F (...provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination.
), is there any other? I couldn't find any. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 08:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Nederlandse Leeuw, Qwerfjkl, TSventon, and Johnbod: I'm opening a closely related discussion infra, namely, Speedy nomination of just emptied categories. JoergenB ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Liz and Bearcat: I notice that Liz yesterday notified Bearcat about more than twenty empty categories, although their names and super-category clearly indicated that they were created as project assesment class collections, which we should not tag for deletion just because they happen to be empty. I looked at that supercategory, Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention, and found that Bearcat created a much larger amount of them (hundreds?), around Oktober 4. Liz, you only tagged those that accidently are empty right now. Beatcat, you consistently avoided the themplates which seemed to be employed by all other creaters of such pages, as Template:Category class and Template:Category importance (not to mention the TOC-tools). I do not think that any of these should be tagged for deletion (and probably those Liz already deleted should be restored); but I also suspect that Bearcat should repair all of them (tagged or not; which probably will take hours, if you have no bot help). Liz, could you explain to us ordinary mortals how these categories should have been written? JoergenB ( talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
We all know that this is a gross breach of procedure, but where does policy actually say this? The category Category:Remarried royal consorts was set up today and quite heavily populated. User:Surtsicna thinks the category is trivial, non-defining etc, and just emptied it (with help from others). When I pointed out this was wrong, he asked where it says so. I have spent longer than should be necessary trying and failing to find a statement of this in relevant piolicy pages. Obviously, if this is allowed it circumvents most of the point of CFD. Wherever such a statement may be, it needs to be far more prominent, and repeated in various places. If (amazingly) there is no plain statement of this long-standing consensus, we need one urgently. Places where I can't see such a statement, and ought to, include WP:CFD, Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization - it ought to be easy to find at all of these. User:Surtsicna is a very long-standing editor, but appears completely unaware that what he has done is wrong. Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
But we don’t limit categories to “why” someone is notable.Hmm? -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
If we had a speedy criterion for "category created without any parent categories" (with an exception for Category:Contents) then that would have applied in this particular case. Categories created without any parent categories are almost always bad ones. User:Johnbod - if there had been such a CSD option would you have used it in this case (rather than "legitimising" the category by adding parent categories)? Or if another editor (e.g. Surtsicna) had CSDed it would you have objected? DexDor (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's my take: If a category exists, any articles clearly and verifiably meeting its definition should not be removed from it so long as the inclusion of the article in the category does not violate any policies or guidelines. Instead, you should nominate the category for deletion if you disagree with its existence. Note that diffusion, defined as removing an article from a category and adding it to one or more subcategories of that category, is not considered removal for the purpose of this guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
In the case of 1 I think editors should generally feel free to do this since this can often be done under WP:BURDEN. Though editors should probably consider using CFD for cases where more than say 5 or 10 articles are in the category or its otherwise likely to be controversial. An example of this was Ashgill Force being in Category:Waterfalls in Alston, Cumbria (its only member) but its not in Alston [1] but actually over 4 miles from it! The category was later deleted 13 days later, then Category:Landforms of Alston, Cumbria was deleted 8 days later and then Category:Geography of Alston, Cumbria 8 days later.
In the case of 2 I think it maybe should be frowned upon to do this but again unless the category is large or otherwise its likely to be controversial it probably shouldn't be prohibited. Given that the Remarried royal consorts category has 38 members its reasonable to say its large enough to be worth discussing. I removed the only member from Category:Buildings in Larbert which was deleted and I did that because I didn't think its a good idea to have a town of that size with a separate "buildings in" category. If someone had objected it would only be a matter of reverting that 1 edit. Going back to the Remarried royal consorts category what happens in the case of a "no consensus" in a CFD while I think its fine to leave a category you disagree with in an article for a week or 2 but if the CFD is closed as no consensus shouldn't the category be removed from the articles per BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS although there may be no consensus to delete the category its self there would be no consensus for the edits to the existing articles to include it. There's a current example of Category:Villages in Aberdeen where an editor removed all 4 members of it (there is discussion at User talk:188.28.158.163 and Talk:Cults, Aberdeen#Village or Suburb) should the editor there have started a CFD or just reverted per BRD? Note that there are at least 4 other villages in Aberdeen that don't yet have articles but probably could do (or at least redirects).
As far as an actual rule against removing all categories for reasons 1 or 2 I don't know how you could enforce it. Would this mean that editors would be prohibited from removing all members of a category? Also in the case of 1 an editor might not have even looked at the category its self and might remove a sole member from a category which results in it being empty. Also note that in comparison with CFDS where categories meeting C2F can be merged/deleted after just 2 days a category that has been emptied "out of process" has to be left for 7 days before being deleted, the same time as a standard CFD. Furthermore the watchlist now has an option to show page categorization so the author or anyone otherwise interested can see if someone removes members (I have this enabled).
A further point to consider is apart from 1 and 2 above and categories populated by templates the only other way a category can end up empty is when all its members end up getting deleted (or redirected without keeping the categories) which doesn't happen that often so if we have an issue with people emptying categories maybe we should consider removing C1? Thoughts @ Johnbod and BrownHairedGirl:. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Taking into account the comments above, I'd propose adding to WP:CAT:
To Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, perhaps just add:
Support as proposer, and notes. I thought it necessary to add that removing cats duplicated at levels in a tree per OCAT is ok - this is very likely the most common reason cats are removed from articles. For the FAQ page, there is already: "(header) How do I delete a category? (text) If you feel a category falls within Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, bring it up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion." -this should be added after that I think. Johnbod ( talk) 14:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
If a category is considered inappropriate as a whole, it should not be emptied, but a deletion discussion started at WP:CFD.IMHO there should be some room left for the situation when removing articles not clearly meeting the category definition (i.e. purging) leaves no article in the category, making it eligible to speedy deletion per C1. Another situation is when a new category has been created and filled by articles out of best practices (i.e. in a way that another editor legitimately objects), in which case reversing questionable inclusions per BRD is allowed. Lastly, the proposed wording does not make mention of speedy criteria according to which a category can be deleted, which confusingly are split between WP:Criteria for speedy deletion § General, WP:Criteria for speedy deletion § Categories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy § Speedy criteria. I therefore think that the proposed wording should be amended to explicitly mention purging, BRD and speedy deletion, without making it too bloat though. Let's be clear: legitimate maintenance actions (such as merely applying the definition of a category to articles inside it, or applying WP:CATDEF) should not be discouraged; what should be discouraged is deliberate attempts to game the system by removing clearly eligible articles (according e.g. to WP:CATDEF) from a category in order to bypass CFD. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I originally tagged this category for speedy deletion on Nov. 14 based on WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion last year in CFD. The editors who take their time to review Category:Candidates for speedy deletion may be more familiar with AfD though and good use a hand reviewing this speedy request. Thanks. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've been fairly sporadic for a very long time, and don't know the current landscape. Although I'm utterly amazed that BrownHairedGirl and Good Olfactory and Carlossuarez (and others) are still keeping the flame alive after all these years.
Johnpacklambert (
talk ·
contribs) has emptied categories that s/he has nominated, and target categories that were suggested for merger. We've had multiple examples in the past month. S/he is an experienced wikipedian, so I'd expected better behavior. What is the best response?
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 00:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Category:China Shipping Group has been brought to deletion review. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the DRV entry Thank you. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Just wanting to make sure I did this right.. this category was recently recreated by a user, despite the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants which resulted in its deletion. I believe that the speedy deletion tag was correct, as it was unpopulated, and actually contained a table (can be viewed here) which is not for category pages like this. Again, just wanting to check and make sure I handled this correctly. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa ( talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I remember that categories that are "performers in a show" were deprecated years ago and fall under WP:PERFCAT. What I don't remember is if any of the speedy deletes apply or if a CFD is needed for newly created categories like Category:Twin Peaks cast members. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 00:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What (if anything) does "delete without prejudice to re-creation" mean? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover that we have around 100k "soft" category redirects. In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Redirecting_categories it says that this is 'because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects', but I think that's outdated information since a simple test seems to work OK. Probably there is something I'm missing here as to why these can't be done as normal redirects? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Just as I filed a bunch of speedy requests for Croatia, I realized a bunch more at Category:Faculty by university or college in Europe. What's the best way to autogenerate a list of all renamings that would stem from that? It seems like that would that need to move out of the speedy category, because with such a wide scope there could well be other options on the table - I see already that the UK category uses the word "academics"... -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Please could any talk page watchers advise on the best venue for a more general discussion of changes to subcategories of Category:Faculty by university or college? Would an advisory WP:RFC make sense, to be followed by a CFD nomination? Joy has found WP:RFCNOT which explicitly says that renaming categories should not be done using the RFC process. TSventon ( talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a template analogous to {{
Old XfD multi}}, so multiple {{
Old CfD}}'s can be reorganized into a single talk page block? You might wonder why not use old xfd multi, but alas, it does not support the |action=
parameter needed to support other discussions than categories for deletion (such as categories for renaming)
CapnZapp (
talk) 11:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't worked in category creation in quite a while but I'm sure this question has come up before. What century can we say that "nationalities" began? I've been working with some Korean occupational categories by century and so I thought I'd see when nationality started to be a category to classify occupational categories of people on Wikipedia.
In my brief search, I found it goes back to Category:6th-century BC people by nationality and occupation. But is this determined country by country, kingdom by kingdom? The nation state is really a product of the Enlightenment so I'm not sure whether we can talk about 5th or 12th century nations in the modern sense. But I don't know what other general classification can be used for medieval Japan, Korea, Spain, India or England. Or should we just stick with what works right now?
My apologies, in advance, if this is a perennial question. When I did a search for nationality at CFD, it brought up specific categories and this is a more general question. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, here is a less ambitious query. In this category, most countries call schools for older students "secondary schools" but a few countries in this category call them "high schools and secondary schools". Should the terminology be standardized across countries to one or the other term? Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The Lutheran churches of Finland, Denmark, and Norway call their clergy pastors, not priests
https://evl.fi/the-church/organisation/parishes
https://evl.fi/current-issues/women-ordained-for-thirty-years
https://kirken.no/nb-NO/church-of-norway/about/basics-and-statistics/
https://www.lutheranchurch.dk/who-we-are/who-works-in-the-church -- Espoo ( talk) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Espoo: did you read my post at 17:47, 29 March 2021 and 19:56, 29 March 2021? I think the answer is to request a merge of Category:Danish Lutheran priests into Category:Danish Lutheran clergy and so on. Category:Lutheran clergy by nationality has 26 national subcategories and only Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have Lutheran priests sub sub categories, so I think that merger would be consistent with the other 22 countries. Category:Danish Christian clergy is the category that contains Danish pastors, priests and other clergy. TSventon ( talk) 22:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that April Fools-related CfD discussions be split to another page, in the fashion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021. Thanks, 2001:569:7B92:5500:B02B:997B:1CF9:16F5 ( talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, is there any kind of new category patrolling system, WikiProject, etc. similar to WP:NPP? Or do CfD nominations mostly come from people encountering a category by chance that they feel needs discussion? I ask mainly since at WP:AFC/RC there are occasionally some borderline category requests. I'm curious if there is a second set of eyes that might see an AfC-created category like a standard AfC article (provided the AfC reviewer isn't autopatrolled/admin). Thanks, 2pou ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Category:Mike McGear songs, I suspect that there are precedents for deleting categories of songs which only contain redirects, but I can't remember them or think how to trace them. @ Good Olfactory: Do you recall such, or have any lists that could help, please? – Fayenatic London 20:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
-- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Amended -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Similarly to how {{ Rfd2}} places anchors to the nominated redirects, it would make sense if {{ Cfd2}} and similar added an anchor to the names of the nominated categories. This would make merging nominations, especially ones started using a tool like Twinkle, easier, as the {{ Cfd}} template on the respective category page will continue to link to a nonexistent section by default. If no-one objects, I will place an edit request to edit the template-protected pages and implement the change myself at {{ Cfs2}}, which is weirdly the only unprotected template of this sort. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Category:Mononymous people - Coagulans ( talk) 10:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As I previously said to the user who deleted it, I do not agree with the deletion of Wikipedian WikiOgres relying on an unclear and disputed 13 years old discussion. We currently have categories for 56 WikiBears, 93 WikiCats, 4 WikiDragons, 425 WikiFairies, thousands of WikiGnomes, 86 WikiGryphons, 30 WikiHobbits, 52 WikiJanitors, 24 Hyphen Luddites, 10 WikiTigers and 4 WikiSquirrels. There are more than 300 WikiOgres here, why can't them be treated equally? Thanks, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please implement the relisting. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello I've nominated Category:Exclude in print for conversion along with other nonfunctional print handling systems at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:Hide in print. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of the Congo and noticed that some treat the name as starting with an "R" and some with a "C". What is the correct convention here? Gonnym ( talk) 10:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
@ Talk:Slavery#Things to do discussed 8 already existing slavery related lists and 7 potential lists.
Is it possible to have some thing like Category:Lists related to slavery to cover all slavery related lists?
I am unaware of categorization related rules and where to put request. Please can some one help out in this respect.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 05:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Political prisoners, and ensuing fuss, I am reminded of an old proposal:
Alternatively:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Category:Political party colour templates was closed August 19 but the categories haven't been moved. Gonnym ( talk) 13:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have just started:
Ugh, then I see that I should not have added the "the"; I should have called them
Is there a quick way to change this? Or do I need to do it by hand? Huldra ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Coming across this bot edit, it appears that there was an error in the closure of the CfD. Instead of merging the Thai people categories to Category:Thai people of Chinese descent, the bot instead merged to Category:Thai politicians of Chinese descent ( contribs). Is there a relatively easy way to fix this semi-automatically? (I originally asked at User talk:Good Olfactory, who doesn't appear to be currently active.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It was suggested on the talk page for Gollum from The Lord of the Rings that the Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities category is malformed in its current state and needs to be reworked to only include accurate depictions of dissociative identity disorder, with the characters who do not meet the real-world diagnostic criteria -- for example, the Hulk or Sam Raimi's iteration of the Green Goblin -- should be removed using the precedent set by Gollum -- whose removal was predicated on a 2004 psychology paper saying that Gollum can't have dissociative identity disorder due to his split personalities being aware of one another and capable of interacting with each other. 2001:569:F875:3D00:510C:3AC8:DC1:83AD ( talk) 22:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anybody knows what happened with the discussion that I had started about several Mass media subcategories, which seems to have disappeared without a trace. I know that I posted a response to @ Oculi:'s concerns a couple of weeks back, and that @ Fayenatic london: had also posted a response. Unfortunately, we suffered a power outage here {thanks, PG&E) before I had time/opportunity to post any further comments -- and quite honestly, I forgot about the whole thing after we got our power back on. So I'm hoping somebody can shed light on what happened to the missing discussion. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 09:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
For reasons which I don’t need to bore anyone with, I am anxious for both these articles Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet and Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, to have categories which make it immediately clear that the baronetcy is extinct. This is currently not the case. Yesterday I added Category:Extinct baronetcies|Great Britain to their pages. This was instantly reverted. The following Asgill baronets explains clearly that the baronetcy became extinct in 1823, but how do I insert a category which links to that? Is there any solution to my problem? Anne ( talk) 08:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I have trouble imagining a scenario where it needs to be made clear in the article of a long-dead baronet, through categories, that their baronetcy is extinct; this is not a defining characteristic of the person, but of the baronetcy itself, and is already found because the baronetcy is in Category:Extinct baronetcies in the Baronetage of Great Britain. On the article of the last baronet, this is indicated by the succession box (at the bottom, right above the categories) stating "extinct": on the articles of earlier baronets, this is normally not important at all, or can be incorporated in the text if truly necessary ("the baronetcy became extinct in XXXX after the death of his son/grandson/whatever"). Categories are not a tool to record every minute detail, and this doesn't seem like a good candidate for a more detailed category. Fram ( talk) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to work out whether it is worth writing some reports on categories. I think many are inaccurate reports as not all articles are assigned. So
And is the information in info boxes more likely to be accurate than the category? Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 00:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 06:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct venue as I seem to have wandered into a meander of redirects to get here....
I've noticed quite a few recent category moves to correct erroneous use of sex instead of gender, such as "Female Fooian writers" being moved to "Women Fooian writers". This however seems to be a fairly random process which I think could be streamlined and done more systematically by including "incorrect categorization by sex instead of gender" as an explicit speedy criterion and even doing it (semi-)automatically by bot or script. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
that "women" is more accurate (see Sex and gender distinction) and because it's the only way to ensure consistency: "women" refers to both cisgender and transgender women, so when "female" is used to describe that group, the word is just being used colloquially to mean "women".I'm not convinced at all by this - I don't believe there's any consensus view that transgender women are women, but they're not female. And speaking of accuracy, an article about a 6-year-old singer would be much more at home in a category called "Female singers" than "Women singers". My bigger question, though, is the same one Northernhenge has, about the process by which this mass change occurred. Was there a discussion about it, or did you just decide by yourself to make this change? Korny O'Near ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It is in fact by definition wrong to use "female/male" instead of "woman/man" for people except when discussing them in biological terms.This may be your opinion or normative view, but I think it finds little support in actual usage (or in lexicographic authorities, for that matter). The OED entry for female includes senses like "Of or relating to a woman or girl.", "Engaged in or exercised by women; done by women.", "Of a quality, attribute, etc.: peculiar to or characteristic of a woman or women." etc. These senses are plainly still in current use. e.g. This BBC article talks about a reality show having a "predominantly young and female audience particularly valuable to advertisers" - there's no salient biological context here, they're just saying its viewership includes lots of young women. Like many words, female has multiple definitions. The relevant definition at any given juncture will depend on context. It's like asking whether a tomato is a fruit, or whether a strawberry is a berry. There is no one universal "correct" answer - it depends on whether we're speaking in a biological context, a culinary context, an agricultural context, etc. Colin M ( talk) 23:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I don't have a dog in the category naming dispute at issue here, but did want to point out two principles that apply generally: (1) except where recent RS take a different approach (e.g., awards given pre-transition), WP uses the latest reliably sourced self-ID of BLP subjects to categorize them, and never any other principle of classification (e.g., sex assigned at birth); and (2) "women" and "female" are both, in the context of category names, labels for gender rather than sex (again with limited exceptions such as "women's reproductive health"). That is all. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to voice my strong opposition to this change, and I completely agree with Colin M that using the word "female" to refer to anything belonging to or relating to women in general is completely normal. I fail to see how anyone could be confused by someone like Laura Jane Grace, as an example, being referred to as a "female guitarist". That is an accurate description. Words like "female" and "male" simply do not, in common parlance, always refer to biology, and insisting that they do is both annoyingly prescriptivist and verging on transphobic. I'd also say that the fact that far more changes seem to have been made on this front to category titles using the word "female" rather than those using the word "male" seems like a wild double standard. Perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourselves with the concepts of transmisogyny and cissexism. Gravelove ( talk) 01:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian has proposed deletion of
Category:Alumni by educational institution and its thousands of subcategories at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#Category:Alumni by educational institution. I would like to request assistance with tagging all the subcategories with {{
subst:Cfd|CfD section name}}
as suggested by
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to. Any further advice would also be welcome.
TSventon (
talk) 21:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking for someone more knowledgeable than I to address the following questions.
I was previously using Category:Rusyns drafts to organize a list of drafts for the management of WikiProject WP:CRUE. An admin informed me that this is not allowed per WP:DRAFTNOCAT. I opened a discussion with them on their talk page and explained that based on my reading of WP:PROJCATS, I believed that their understanding was incorrect. They encouraged me to reach out to WP:CFD for comment.
The category in question is now deleted, but I am pursuing this because I would like to reinstate it.
The discussion (which contains greater detail) can be found here.
KaerbaqianRen[ talk ] 05:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rusyns/Drafts/
, you can get a list of them all at
Special:PrefixIndex (
example). You can also programmatically output a list of such pages using the template {{
PrefixIndex}}
.
Colin M (
talk) 23:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Please, check the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#WP Gender studies. Thanks, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Input on potential Category:American same-sex marriage opponents or similar, any input is appreciated. Would like to have some sort of rough consensus that such a category is workable before creating it. Apologies for not listing it here originally! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Fayenatic, Dicklyon, other watchers, I forget how this has been dealt with previously, but could large batches of uncontroversial requests be collapsed or given their own section to make it easier to navigate the other requests? TSventon ( talk) 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [ talk 00:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I am facing this problem with Ukrainian categories, because Ukraine had an administrative reform in 2020. I was recently told that there are similar problems for Latvia, which had a similar reform last year. Let me pick up an example of Ukraine and explain what the problem is. The reform reduced the number of raions - the second-level administrative units - so that some raions were merged in the bigger raions (and some of these bigger raions were newly created, and some were existing earlier but were significantly expanded as a result of the reform). Some raions were actually split as a result of the reform - for example, Kitsman Raion was split between Vyzhnytsia Raion and Chernivtsi Raion, Chernivtsi Oblast. Now, we have at least two problems.
Categorization is supposed to capture defining qualities ( WP:CATDEF). It seems to me that people by location should be defined by how secondary sources characterize them, and I assume this is typically is their nationality or their place of birth. Taras Shevchenko was a Ukrainian author, subject of the Russian empire, born in Moryntsi. Does anyone know or care what raion he is from? I imagine raion might only be significant for people born in a rural location not associated with a village. — Michael Z. 22:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If a category is renamed using speedily renaming, are the articles in that category automatically recategorized to the new category name? I know there a bots that will do this for soft redirect categories, but will that happen automatically for renaming? Needless to say I don't want to ask to rename a category and then have to edit all the articles in that category. Coastside ( talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I want to rename all categories in this category Category:Shinto cults from x faith to x cult, because they are about cults of specific deities. I believe calling them "faith" is a mistranslation from google translate, and that it mistakenly implies that something like the Tenjin faith is an independent religion like the Baháʼí Faith, whereas all of these groups are more like Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Regular participants at CFD may be missing the way that nominations, including rationales, used to be indented using colons. Apparently that was unhelpful for accessibility, see Template talk:Cfd2#Remove leading colons. I have now amended the CFD templates to include {{ Block indent}}, as will be seen when editing new discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Speedy rename and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Wikipedia:Speedy rename until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I think those categories are misnamed.
etc.
There are many other resonances, those categories only apply to resonance with Neptune.
-- Io Herodotus ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I must be missing something obvious but I can't see how to nominate for speedy deletion two categories that I have just created (due to a misunderstanding of the effect of template:LBE). Could someone point me in the right direction, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Determine which speedy criterion appliesGot that one: G7.
Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}How is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename? Ok, let's assume that this instruction doesn't apply and ignore it.
List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this pageSo I go to "Current requests" where I find
Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here. Again, how is that relevant when I am not asking for a rename?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago the "ANSI standards" cat was speedied to "American National Standards Institute standards", a name which is used by precisely zero people on the planet earth. Unfortunately, the speedy page has no search function, so I cannot find the discussion of why this occurred.
In any event, to avoid having everyone solve this problem the hard way (a deletion warning on page create), is it reasonable to have a redir for this cat? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The question is how to make a redir. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Do we still need the message on top "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators."? I think the table with number of open discussions per month should suffice. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Under C2A, the sentence "This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" is awkward. The word "such" seems out of place, and "when the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain" seems badly phrased. We know what the distinction is. The issue arises when it might be debatable which of those a particular category is. I propose replacing the sentence with "This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category". Largoplazo ( talk) 23:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Just checking ... since me, a non-admin, cannot edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, closing discussion to "rename/move" is considered a WP:BADNAC??? If so, dang ... no wonder WP:CFD has such a massive backlog. Also, technically, non-admins listing their closes on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is a WP:BADNAC since administrators have to respond to the requests on the talk page for their closes to be listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
User:LaundryPizza03 reverted my bold edit and while it is not a big deal to me I will explain the two underlying reasons anyway:
Category:Lists of Disney television series episodes was nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Disney Channel related-lists by MegaSmike46 ( talk · contribs) on July 15, but it doesn't appear that they ever added the entry to WP:CFD as required. Is it appropriate to remove the CFR tag on the category at this point, or can the request be completed by updating the CFD page? Note that I intend to oppose this request as I feel the proposal changes the meaning of the category. DonIago ( talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
List of garden features and the entirely nonhierarchical template at the bottom of it both look like they might be better as categories. Eyecatchers might also benefit. Of course, subcats in the template and additional information or index images in the list article would also be good, but at the moment both are flat category-like lists. I'm really not fashed about what structure is used, whatever works for the person doing it. I'm posting this here in hopes someone might have a clever (perhaps semi-automated) way to do this sort of thing, as I don't think I'll be doing it. HLHJ ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
{{ admin backlog}} I've noticed that CFD tends to move way slower than the other CFD proposals, and items often fail to get relisted. Take for instance this nomination. It was relisted on the 18th and has clearly gone stale, as no one else has even looked at it in 15 days. This one has been open since the 15th and should clearly be closed as there is no opposition. It seems like every time I file a CFD, it tends to progress far slower than any other XFD. Does anyone know why they tend to run slower, and what could be done to speed them up? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a "Dummies Guide" to closing CfD discussions because I've read over the instructions several times over the past few years and found them intimidating enough that I never started doing closings, which I was trying to comply with. I note that she later promised that
It's on [her] "To Do" list to try to take on some more simple closures next monthand never followed through (
next monthrefers to February) Poorly-written instructions aside, CfD closing is necessarily more complicated that most other types of discussion closure because implementing the result isn't just making one edit or admin action. TfD, the only other forum with that property, is really only staying above water because most nominations are entirely uncontroversial. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization § RfC: should templates and template categories roll up into related content categories. — andrybak ( talk) 21:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Books by publisher has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Posting notice here for open, undiscussed RfC — Wingedserif ( talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_18#Category:Basketball_players_at_the_2022_NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Final_Four user:Namiba nominated from 2022 back to 2006, but IIUC Category:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year and the rest of its sub-cats should also now be nominated for deletion, and so should Category:NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament Final Four players by year. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Does C2A cover renamings due to incorrect pluralization? For example, if there was a category "Attorney Generals of Missouri" which *should* be "Attorneys General of Missouri" (the one that I've found is actually for an Inspector General) Naraht ( talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Marcocapelle, @ Fayenatic london, I won't be on Wikipedia for a few days, from Friday to Sunday or Monday, so I won't be able to close CfDs for the next few days. Just a heads up. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Shipbuilding companies of the United States
Category:Shipyards of the United States
Category:Shipyards in California
Category:Shipbuilding companies of California
the left hand categorically does not know what the right hand does?
Then there is another problem. Sorting by state is not best. Portland and Vancouver shipyards on the Columbia and Willamette River are in spitting distance, but the Vancouver yards would end up in the same category as yards in Seattle.
Same for certain Shipyards in New York Harbor that get mixed together with yards on the Delaware River, because the state of New Jersey touches both.
Nowakki ( talk) 22:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
i don't see a consensus there. also somebody was "not thrilled" by the word major. also, there was not even a reply to arguments i made.
nothing happened and somebody just renamed it anyway? is this how it works?
i am not thrilled by the word "major" not being included. that's the whole point of the category. Nowakki ( talk) 15:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
not one of them put into words their feelings about the word "major", how else do you interpret
certainly remove "major" from the category name. You may personally believe the result should have been otherwise, but consensus (from experienced CfD participants) was against you. They clearly articulated their reasoning, so it was not
vague intuitions. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised that the Linguists from Foo categories, recently CFDS'ed by Oculi and moved to processing by Timrollpickering, went through without anyone noticing/objecting. (Unfortunately I wasn't watching any of the affected category pages.) The previous Linguists from Foo naming scheme was the result of a 2012 CfD, and should not have been overridden by CFDS. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 17:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Update: Renaming already reversed by Fayenatic london, now under WP:CFDS#Opposed requests. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:English-language education
Somehow today's closing was misinterpreted.
The kept Category:English-language education was renamed to Category:Education by language.
Please revert that mistaken renaming, and then instead rename
Category:Language education by language to
Category:Education by language as written.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I will potentially need help at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 16#Category:Non-fiction with respect to listing/tagging the plethora of appropriate subcats of Category:Non-fiction. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Categorizing events by venue
Having lost at CfD repeatedly, and opposed again on the Talk, the user has attempted a non-conforming RFC.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I just cleaned up this whole tree as there were a number of article where the text had been updated about the building's completion but the old category remained. Four of the subcats each had just 1 article and all 4 of those buildings were completed so I inadvertently emptied the subcats for Idaho, Puerto Rico, Guam and Bus stations which were created by @ Good Olfactory, BrownHairedGirl, and Hugo999:.
Since I just updated the articles in good faith I'm assuming I can let the categories be automatically deleted without making a CFD nomination. (But I bet every reckless editor who empties a category out of process tells themself the same thing!)
If I should take a different approach, let me know. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I have made a WP:BOLD change to WP:C2F from "one eponymous article" to "one eponymous page", and extended the specified cases to include one eponymous template. [2] – Fayenatic London 15:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice that per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#RfC: Name of the small country nestled within Senegal should probably result in Category:The Gambia sub-category renames as well. Gonnym ( talk) 11:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There's a proposal on the main page here to speedily move a category. Someone has opposed the speedy move, and given a rationale. I'd like to say something in favor of the move. But the discussion is now under the heading "Opposed requests." What's the proper way to put in my 2 cents? Do I do it right where it is, or do I move the discussion somewhere? Uporządnicki ( talk) 19:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you guys have juristiciaon over userbox categories, or is that under MfD? User:Crainsaw 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Fayenatic London, do you know if rcats should be discussed here or at TfD? Asking in relation to this TfD discussion about an rcat. — Qwerfjkl talk 19:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I think they're pretty much like any maintenance cat. If the populating template is deleted, then the associated cat can typically be speedied - housekeeping, empty, whatever. - jc37 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I am getting bombarded with mass proposals of deletion of categories I created, work alone that took me many hours. I find it unreasonable because I cannot be on top of all of them at the same time and cannot have time to populate them when that's the concern. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there draft space for categories to see how a tree works out? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Category:Rcat template documentation pages this was closed but I don't see the category in the /working sub-page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed the 6 June CfD to merge sports clubs and teams categories, and I wonder if this is an issue overlooked by the participants: Many of the articles under the sports clubs categories are sports clubs in the sense of country clubs or similar social venues, not competitive clubs/teams. As a result of the CfD, Category:Golf clubs and courses is now under the combined Category:Sports clubs and teams. Is this as desired? Or should such categories and articles be removed and placed under the venues tree instead (if not already there)? Pinging discussion participants Aidan721, Bearcat, Marcocapelle, Pelmeen10, Laurel Lodged and Fayenatic london. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Currently in the CfD pages there is a heading of the date as a sub-heading 1, and each individual discussion has a sub-heading 2. For example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 8, has === July 8 ===, and the first discussion is ==== Category:People from Drogheda, County Down ====.
In order to facilitate discussions, I propose instead:
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
{{ Cfd notice}} works when a single category is nominated, but what can be used for a mass nomination? — Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Considering that C2D is used not only for categories under a main article, but also for categories under a main template, or a main project page (e.g., WikiProjects). Hence, I think that C2D should be reworded from the current "Consistency with main article's name" to something more inclusive. Thoughts? — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
As suggested by Marcocapelle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_19#Category:Broods, let's have a new speedy criterion to allow deletion of a musician category if it only contains a main article plus songs sub-cat and albums sub-cat. Such a category needs to be nominated for manual merging only of the main article if required, and would need to be manually deleted because the {{ albums category}} & {{ songs category}} templates on the sub-cats will populate it as long as it exists.
This could be set up as a special case of WP:C2F, or a new separate criterion. I suggest the nomination should use a new template. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Couiros22: This should not have been moved as dolphins are not fish. It's quite possible that some of the similar categories requested also have non-fish, but even if they don't, they could in time have non-fish such as molluscs or corals added to them, so should remain. I believe that the fish categories should instead subcat from the fauna categories. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 01:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, per precedent I'd like to mass-nominate Category:People by language family of descent and all its subcategories with either "language family", "Turkic" or "Slavic" in it, but nothing else. How do I do that easily without making it a tedious manual task? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated a set of categories to rename last month at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Enigmatic taxa, but have since found out just too late that I set the wrong new names for two of the categories:
As you can see the two target categories for these two are paired with the wrong original categories. Unfortunately since the discussion has already been closed, the bot has already gone through all these categories as of writing, and for whatever reason renamed the first one back shortly after (???). (Edit: and has renamed the second one to its correct target, is this bot being manually controlled or can it detect these kinds of errors?)
What's the best way to deal with this kind of error? Is there a process for fixing this kind of error straight away (I'm actually not sure if the speedy renaming criteria apply here though), or do these have to be sent back through Cfd all over again? (Honestly I'm a bit disappointed nobody else caught this error of mine, let alone before closure of the discussion) Monster Iestyn ( talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, using Twinkle I just nominated a category ( Category:Eogeometer, for those interested) for speedy merging because it meets C2F (one eponymous page). However, I found Twinkle didn't notify the article creator about this action, and nor can I find a suitable template for notifying an interested editor about speedy merging of a category ( Template:Cfd notice doesn't seem suited as far as I can tell). Is there such a template to use? Or should I not worry about notifying the article creator in this case? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with
Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say,
Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as
Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself. Scratching post for now. This needs completely different angle of approach.
౪ Santa ౪
99° 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled on this old discussion
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories whose conclusion says what it says, and most of the subcats contain a Hatnote that alert editors what to do and how to use these cats and its subcats, but then I checked few random subcategories in Category:Racism (including above mentioned Antisemitism / Islamophobia in the UK) and it appears only those concerning Islamophobia are emptied and watched over. This discrepancy problem won't be easy to correct since it comprises who knows how many articles and subcategories, maybe many hundreds.
These categories were moved under C2D following page moves which were reversed before the categories were moved. The page moves have been reversed and a Requested Move is in progress so the category moves may need to be reversed if the articles are not moved again
TSventon ( talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I've started a draft for a tutorial on closing CfDs. It is by no means finished, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether this entire category tree shouldn't be nuked. There generally won't be any notable "media" in a "franchise" that aren't "mass", and this category tree and its propagation down to things like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) mass media with subcats like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) films makes it very difficult to find the works that are completely central to the franchise to begin with. Plus all this extraneous injection of "(franchise)". It just led to a categorization editwar at Blade Runner, and there are probably other instances, but just making the categories a confusing and frustrating waste of time for readers is the main issue.
I'm opening this for some general discussion first before launching a large-scale CfD, in case there's some really, really compelling reason for this mess that I somehow can't see yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
C2F, for an eponymous category with no content but the eponym itself, is listed here as a speedy deletion criterion — but it is not available as a deletion rationale in the drop-down menu if I actually try to delete a category on those grounds, meaning that I have to manually come to the list of speedy deletion criteria to refresh my memory of what its section code even is before I can delete a category on those grounds. Is there any way to get it added to the drop-downs? Bearcat ( talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 ( talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Should the M be capitalized in Category:Foreign Ministers of Germany or Category:Foreign ministers of Gabon. The categories are very inconsistent. Note, this also affects the equivalent categories for Defense Minister/minister. Naraht ( talk) 03:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns ... They are capitalized only in the following cases:
When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural (my, DB1729's, emphasis), is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan.
The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it.
Note that for "president of the United States" or "prime minister of the United Kingdom", the name of the country remains capitalized even when the title is not, as it is always a proper noun. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs).— MOS:JOBTITLE
All Categories starting with "Foreign Minister of" should be changed to "Foreign minister of" based on MOS:JOBTITLE since not about a single person as a Job Title. Naraht ( talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
If I !vote "oppose" to a Speedy, should I move that item into the "Opposed requests" section? Or will this be done according to a review / timed cleanup process? Thanks for the information. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Before listing merges at WP:CFDW, please check whether parent categories or other page contents need to be merged. In this set (which happened to be from the Speedy page), some additional parents and portals needed to be merged. Unusually, for that set, there was a category header template, and the missing page content could be incorporated into that. Normally, any missing parents or other content have to be added manually. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This discussion was closed 10 days ago but the category is yet to be moved. Is their something I am supposed to do to move it? I thought a bot performed to move automatically. ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk) 12:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Quick question: I believe there are rules against emptying categories that have been nominated for deletion (or merging), but apart from
WP:C2F (...provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination.
), is there any other? I couldn't find any. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 08:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Nederlandse Leeuw, Qwerfjkl, TSventon, and Johnbod: I'm opening a closely related discussion infra, namely, Speedy nomination of just emptied categories. JoergenB ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Liz and Bearcat: I notice that Liz yesterday notified Bearcat about more than twenty empty categories, although their names and super-category clearly indicated that they were created as project assesment class collections, which we should not tag for deletion just because they happen to be empty. I looked at that supercategory, Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention, and found that Bearcat created a much larger amount of them (hundreds?), around Oktober 4. Liz, you only tagged those that accidently are empty right now. Beatcat, you consistently avoided the themplates which seemed to be employed by all other creaters of such pages, as Template:Category class and Template:Category importance (not to mention the TOC-tools). I do not think that any of these should be tagged for deletion (and probably those Liz already deleted should be restored); but I also suspect that Bearcat should repair all of them (tagged or not; which probably will take hours, if you have no bot help). Liz, could you explain to us ordinary mortals how these categories should have been written? JoergenB ( talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)