![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Included in the archive was the poll ending in September, 2004, about whether or not to merge WP:CFD and WP:VFD. The final result was no merger with the following final tally:
The issues of unresolved votes and getting enough people to pay attention to WP:CFD were also raised.
Jerzy (t) and I recently had a discussion about the rules for deleting categories. There seems to be a conflict between
I believe most people use CfD rather than Speedy to nominate categories for deletion for any reason including simple renames. To reduce the clutter in CfD, I propose we create a new category-based policy for "simple" category renaming similar to the speedy deletion policy. Template:Catmove and Category:Categories to be moved could be used for this purpose. With this approach, to rename a category {{catmove|New name}} would be added (with suitable text changes to catmove, including indicating that objections should be added to the category's talk page), and after 2 days with no objections anyone could recategorize the members of the old category to the new category and any admin could delete the old category after it's emptied. It would be convenient if there were a tool available at least to all admins to do the recategorizations, but until such a tool is widely available (Move this page should actually do this) Pearle can be used in the rare cases where a heavily populated category is renamed. In case it's not obvious, the essential advantage of a category-based approach is that it eliminates at least 2 edits of WP:CFD per category rename (one to list the request, one to remove the request when done). -- Rick Block 17:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To summarize my views on this:
This is what I would propose:
Anyone can move an article. The result is a redirect. If the original title for some reason absolutely should not exist, it can be nominated as a redirect for deletion. The reason categories are different is that, for a large category, if you move a large category and I disagree, it's not easy to restore the original category, since every article must be edited. I'd like to see a policy that for small categories (obviously we would have to define small—ten articles or less? fifteen? twenty?), anyone can simply move the articles to the new category and use Template:Categoryredirect on the old one. Since we have a more or less functional category "redirect", it shouldn't be necessary to go through Categories for deletion for simple moves. Redirects are "cheap" and don't need to be deleted unless there is something usually wrong with them. - Aranel ("Sarah") 18:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say, drop the CfD rule to 24 hours for all cases, and change the speedy delete text to point to the CfD policy, and encourage people to use the CFD tag, not the "delete" tag. We previously discussed what to do with empty categories, and we said that people should be given a chance to populate them. This implies that they should not be deleted without being listed on WP:CFD. -- Beland 00:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One thing that would really help get the page size down (which would make working on it a lot easier - saves, rendering, etc would all be faster) would be to deal with some of the old items which have accrued long lists of comments. I don't hang out here enough to feel comfortable tackling what are obviously tricky ones, but if one of the regulars could (while the rest of us do the mundane stuff) that would really be a help in getting the size down. Noel (talk) 05:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A suggestion - would it be better if this page was organised like the article vfd page - individual subpages for each category deletion candidate, so that comments can be posted on the separate pages rather than having to edit the main page each time?
Grutness|
hello?
08:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason this is particularly bad at the moment is that I have been out of town, and until recently I've been one of the only administrators to consistently work on taking care of this page. (There are some other folks who poke their heads in and some non-administrators who do excellent work.) I'll be back next week and then hopefully I can take care of the backlog.
If you want to get an old discussion off the main page and you're not sure what the consensus is, then you can archive it at unresolved (it is generally better to resolve an issue, but when we have this kind of backlog, it's good to be able to just get a discussion off the page). I even made a little personal template to use on the archive paegs. (See User:Aranel/unresolved.) Anyone can archive old discussions. - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since most of the nominations on this page are for renaming, I have made template:Cfr. Use it like this: {{cfr|newname}}
Comments? -- ssd 07:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Would it help, for organizational purposes here, to have tags to put on categories that are waiting to be emptied or moved? It might help to have a notice so that folks don't continue to use a doomed category. We could use the tags to create a sort of to-do list that would be independent of this page. This would be a lot easier to use for non-controversial moves and deletions—instead of removing an entry and adding it to the list at the bottom of the page requesting that it be emptied, then removing that entry later, we could just add the to-be-moved or to-be-emptied tag and remoev the entry here.
I would find this useful, but of course I'm a bit obsessive about organization. (Which, I suppose, is why I enjoy working on categories in the first place.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does WP:CFD put the newest at the top yet WP:IFD, WP:RFD, WP:PUI, WP:VFD, etc. add the newest to the bottom? Cburnett 17:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now that there's a template:cfr (which replaced template:catmove), how about a differentiable header/title field for categories to be renamed?
=== [[:Category:original name]] → [[:Category:proposed name]] ===
132.205.15.43 06:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
===[[:Category:original name]]=== :→ [[:Category:proposed name]]
If the template were changed to: [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:{{PAGENAME}} → {{1}}|this page's entry]] wouldn't that work? 132.205.15.43 00:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've went through the entire list at Uncategorised categories and have found many categories that are childless and uncategorised. Since they neither have children and they are not categorised anywhere, is it safe to assume that the category does not need to exist? Apart from someone typing in the exact name of the category or looking on a list of categories, no one will ever find them. Do I have to list every entry one by one? Can these qualify for a speedy? The editable list with notes is here, if anyone is interested: User:Jag123/Uncategorised categories -- jag123 15:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What's the minimum time? 3 months or 6 months? Is this 'policy' actually being observed by the people who participate in deleting categories? So what tag do I put in? -- jag123 04:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know it existed. That page should be listed on the special pages template as the editable version. -- jag123 18:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I destroyed by mistake the English version of page
ATC code A02 (overwrite to translate into french; I tought I was in the French section.
Please restore the previous English version
I am very sorry
Eras-mus 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For category titles that just have incorrect spelling or capitalization, I wonder whether if handling might be split off somehow from the more substantive changes. Some type of "speedy category rename" might be more efficient. Maurreen 06:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed the above mentioned page, and added the people who frequent here on that list. Go ahead and add/edit your entry there if you have nto already! -- ssd 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What does "Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion." means? Am I supposed to add the name of the category to it's article text? Paranoid 17:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The precedents accumulating under Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved should probably be fed back into Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and subpages, at some point. -- Beland 07:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The [[Category:Czech weapons]] (enter in search box; using link puts this page in the category) page says it is listed here, but I don't see it. It has in fact been renamed.
Weapons of the Czeck Republic is an idiotic category name for at least a couple of reasons:
Gene Nygaard 14:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are currently three strings of discussion over the use of the term "mainland China", namely Laws, Companies and Cities. They do demonstrate high degree of similarity, and many of the arguments are actually repeated in the three sections. I would like to suggest to have the discussions of these three sections to be combined and continued.
On the other hand, from the arguments and opinion that many contributors have provided, familiarity with the issue is far from satisfactory. Although everybody's opinion count and must be respected, Wikipedia is not a place for simple head counts. Collaboration and consensus building are based upon knowledge and familiarity. I am not saying it has now become mobocracy, but everyone knows it is undesirable, and we have to avoid it from happening. The issue is already on debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), and I believe it will be better dealt with, before bringing up here. — Insta ntnood 17:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved here from cfd:delete me:
The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete:
The following discussion has been moved here from cfd:delete me:
I deleted
Category:China geography stubs yesterday - someone revived it, so I've just deleted it a second time. If it's revived again, it should be investigated...
Grutness|
hello?
00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
CFD is now getting quite big. Uploading during peak hours often results in congestion and leads to the error message. Would it be possible to have this page restructured, like votes for deletion, with separate pages for each section? — Insta ntnood 06:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
On the same note, I believe the page may become more legible if it is split into two pages - one for deleting categories and another for renaming them. The former is often subject to some discussion and the latter is usually pretty straightforward. Any thoughts on this? Radiant _* 13:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of the vfd-style subpages. I think it would be a good thing for this page.
Grutness|
hello?
02:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, the page is somewhat restructured thanks to the recent discussion and a bot by AllyUnion. Specifically, there is a subpage for each day (all transcluded) and one for speedy renames (also transcluded for now). However, there remains the question what should be done when an entry is finished - does it still get moved to /resolved or /unresolved? Should perhaps the bot move all transclude pages older than a week onto /unresolved?
R adiant _* 09:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
/unresolved is supposed to be for pages that a cleanup person could not resolve. It used to be that discussions no one had bothered trying to resolve would just pile up at the bottom of the page. Where am I supposed to find the to-be-closed discussions now? -- Beland 01:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've closed everything from the 2nd to the 12th(?). I didn't move anything to /resolved or /unresolved from those dates. I just left them on the day pages, but removed the transclusion from CfD. The links to those pages are at the top of CfD, like on VfD. Is that what you mean? -- Kbdank71 01:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Popular songs was ignorantly deleted as it lacked a definition and non-music editors did not realize the obvious one, found at popular music. Perhaps the category should be renamed Category:Popular music songs, but it should not have been deleted. Hyacinth 01:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(moved from CfD) Category:Consonant --> Category:Consonants
--
Is this something we want to bring up again for discussion and vote? -- Kbdank71 13:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(copied from CfD - Delete Me)
I'm a little confused. It appears that "News trade" was taken off the "Delete me" list without being deleted. Maurreen 07:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A category is proposed to delete. Five people vote, 3 to delete, 2 to keep. The 2 to keep feel strongly about it. After seven days someone (who voted to delete) deleted it.
I thought policy was that underexposed, and controversial deletes should be kept until further votes got a clear consensus? I don't think five votes gets you consensus when a single vote would change it. SchmuckyTheCat 02:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I am EXTREMELY peeved that this was discussed and resolved without anybody ever even attempting to contact me, as the person who created most of these categories in the first place. My reasoning for creating the categories was as follows:
But above all else, the bottom line is that this should never have been discussed without somebody advising me that it was up for debate, and somebody owes me an explanation. Bearcat 03:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Following discussion moved from CfD:
If you would like to receive notification that a given category has been nominated for deletion, I think the thing to is to watchlist the category. We here at CFD try very hard to make sure all categories nominated for deletion are tagged so that watchlists will trigger. We presume that this will notify anyone who cares strongly one way or the other. Occasionally, we need to use a bot to tag categories for bulk renames, and it's not really feasible to contact all the creators in those situations. Personally, I've created a lot of categories I'd prefer that I not be contacted about. If I do care, I watchlist. Otherwise, I don't. -- Beland 03:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I too, am very upset that this happened, and more upset about HOW it happened. I don't know of any policy about RESTORING categories, so unless someone points me to a policy about this, I am going to BE BOLD and create one on the spot. My new policy is:
Had this been merely an article edit, the changes would have been restored immediately. It seems reasonable that category changes have the possibility of a quick revert. If someone then wants to restart the CfD process they can, but there will obviously be more people involved the next time around.
I already count more than 5 votes to restore. The person who created the Bot says it can also be restored with a bot. I will wait 3 days for discussion here about my new policy and if there is no other resolution, I will assume there is consensus to proceed and ask him to implement the restoration. -- Samuel Wantman 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we just post a nomination for undeletion and on the main page? In fact, I'll do it right now. -- Beland 23:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I note from the archived discussion that there were 5 votes to keep the categorisation and only 4 to delete (one changed from delete to keep). As such they should have been kept and at worst (if miscounted) it was not a clearcut decision. Deletion should never rely on just the votes, but on the validity of the reasoning behind them too. Yes, there are some people who will hate every category we use on here (probably just leaves us with "aniumal","vegetable","mineral","place", and "person") but these were clearly valid and very useful categories. Resinstate ASAP! -- Vamp: Willow 23:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Two other points from the above discusison. Most editors use categories, we don't create them, and this once we get used to using them we expect them to stay there and continue to be available for use. In respect of the sub-categories stupidity, many many articles have multiple category entries. An entry needing Category:Italian-American LGBT musicians would, of course, actually be tagged Category:LGBT people, Category:musicians and Category:Italian-Americans (or equivalents)! -- Vamp: Willow 23:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
please sign contributions. thankyou. ( Vamp: Willow)
There exists no consensus (so far as I'm aware—please point me at the relevant policy page if you disagree) as to what to do when presenting both a question (delete category) and subquestions (delete subcategories) for vote at the same time without specifying whether the question is controlling. In this case, it appears that the wording at the time assumed that:
This is contrary to every rule of consensus or parliamentary procedure I've ever heard of. If you have subquestions, you consider them if and only if the overall question is approved. You can't have something happen because of the lack of response, but that's exactly what happened here. The folks who voted to keep the category just naturally assumed that they didn't have to vote on the subcategories, while the folk who voted to delete the category voted to delete the subcategories too. This is cockeyed and backwards. This—along with the overall issue of visibility of CfD—is why there's such an outcry—it just feels sneaky.
The other problem with this vote was presenting a passel of categories all at once and holding a single vote on them. In parliamentary law, as soon as the first person indicated that they wanted the question to be severable, as Deco did, the overall vote would no longer be valid. I understand that Wikipedia does not work under parliamentary law, but the principle holds: it's hard to imagine a reason to continue with the vote as a whole when someone had indicated that they didn't see the whole as a cohesive question.
The right thing to do would have been to have the first question ("delete cat and subcats"), and then after it failed, bring up the subquestion ("delete subcats"). To do otherwise is as senseless as a country voting on several resolutions "shall John be made President? Shall Alice? Shall Mary?" simultaneously, and just assuming that everyone knows what happens when more than one of the resolutions pass. TreyHarris 22:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
(Moved from CfD):
Since alot of the cfr renames are actually category mergers, I think that a new template may be in order template:cfm Categories for merging ; And jointly with this would be a template:cfmf Merge from notice at the destination, to allow navigation from there, and to alert destination's users about an influx of articles. What do you think? 132.205.15.43 21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Categories for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]
As I understand it, the theory of CfD is that categories are just a special kind of article, and so the current notification on the category page should be sufficient.
But categories aren't, in general, used as articles; they're used within other articles. From that standpoint, they aren't so much like articles as like templates.
Note that Wikipedia:Templates for deletion specifies:
I think it's clear that we desperately need such a visibility mechanism for CfD on categorized pages, too. I'd like to start a discussion here on what mechanisms might be available. Without changing MediaWiki source to allow for some new mechanism, the only one that immediately springs to my mind is a bot populating categorized talk pages with a CfD notice. Someone earlier suggested an asterisk next to the names of categories that are up for deletion. (I think that would require a new feature in MediaWiki, but maybe I'm wrong.) What are some other possibilities?
I think the qualities of such a mechanism should be:
Any other criteria? TreyHarris 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Categories: *CFD*:CategoryName:*CFD* |
? 132.205.15.43 22:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
{{{cfd}}
or some such, like for vfd; then it could easily delete it again when voting's over—luckily it could delete it regardless of the results, so the code wouldn't be too complicated.
TreyHarris 22:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)I was asked to participate in this discussion. Adding a template to all articles within a category that is going to be deleted seems unnecessary work. Because you'll have to go back to remove the template once the CfD voting is over with. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There has been a push to remove subcategories of people such as LGBT composers, Jewish American authors, etc... To quote Postdlf:
I do think Postdlf has a valid argument here. However, I believe that part of the genesis for this conflict is because of the rigidly held view that articles cannot be in both subcategories and supercategories. I've been arguing for changing this rule for months at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and I think we may have a compromise that says that articles CAN sometimes be in both super and sub-categories. This is an attempt to address just this concern.
This problem comes about because there are multiple category hierarchies in Wikipedia and sometimes the subcategories of one hierarchy can also be thought of as subcategories of another. In the LGBT case, the people working on LGBT categories were not attempting to ghettoize LGBT people, but just trying to create categories they find useful. Others think this makes the supercategories LESS useful. I don't believe the solution is to remove the subcategories. The solution is to make clear guidelines for when there can be duplication. Here is the compromise:
I'm moving this discussion from the speedy rename section to preserve.
Since no one moved to remove the entry from the speedy rename section, I went ahead and moved the articles to the originally proposed title. If anyone wants to propose an alternate title, they are - of course - still free to do so in the main section. -- Azkar 00:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Azkar proposed ( [3]) that "Conversions from singular to plural (or back)" be added to the Speedy Renaming criteria. I second the motion, and am listing it here for discussion and consensus. If there are no objections within one week, it should be instated as such. R adiant _* 08:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Template:Cfd-howto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Cfd-howto. Thank you. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:55, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
The consensus from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4 is to rename the category, but there were a couple of different suggestions being bantered around. I thought one of the better ones was Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people. This was by User:Kbdank71
Could discussion on this please continue further up this page where the matter is already being discussed. Part of the problem has been the number of different locations this to'ing and fro'ing has got on WP. Thanks. ps. "LGBT people" will work a lot beter than having it spelt out and possible capitalisation and ordering issues causing problems. -- Vamp: Willow 14:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought that was for the subcategories. -- Kbdank71 14:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Category:American people by occupation has 58 subcategories. Of these, 11 start with "U.S.", 3 start with "United States", and the rest start with "American." I am requesting a community consensus on coming up with a consistent naming of these categories. Personally, I would prefer "U.S." if we were starting from scratch, since it is less typing, but would be satisfied with "American" because it is in the parent category and also requires that fewer existing links be changed. — RussBlau 17:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Was there a reason for changing the titles on CfD? -- Kbdank71 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There is an off by one error in the transcludes. Click on Edit for "Pseudo-protected" and I find myself editing "Navigational Rallying", etc. Some of the categories aren't listed on the main CfD page because of this. Please to be fixing.
To counter instruction creep and repetitive discussion, I would like to propose the following:
if a category is generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo Stub), and that template is deleted by regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template.
I finally worked out it should be
Paul foord 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
This is a notification that NekoDaemon will now automatically archive the 7 day ago transinclude and turn it into a link into the Old infobox. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies has not been updated to document the newfangled transcluded way of doing things, so I'm confused as to where I can find "categories that it has been decided that they should be deleted but they haven't yet" and "discussions that have passed the normal closure period but haven't been adjudicated yet". -- Beland 01:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
A number of weeks ago, after a lengthy vote and discussion, Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted. However, I have just noticed that there is still this category: Category:Islamic terrorist organizations, which would have been a subcategory of the other. Why wasn't this also deleted? Don't tell me we have to have a separate vote on every subcategory; there can't possibly be a rationale for deleting the parent category and not its offspring. -- Viajero 02:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Template:cfd top says: This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the category below, but it actually deals with the debate about the category listed above. I'd have changed the wording myself, but thought I'd bring it up for comment here first. Grutness... wha? 01:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
After a proposal for a "stub messages for deletion" page was met with generally positive sentiments on the Village Pump, I have written up a draft in my userspace:
Since this infringes on the jurisdiction of this page (Stub messages consist of a template and a category), you might want to leave any comments/praises/flames/general disagreement on the talk page. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, folks. I haven't seen Kbdank71 around in a few days, so I'm going to go ahead and close some of the older discussions. Just giving a brief look at the bottom of the page, there are a few discussions that don't really look like they're finished yet. Since we're getting quite a bit of clutter, though, with the discussions that are closed, I'm going to try and tidy things up a bit.
I'm going to create a new section called "Unresolved after seven days" (or something like that - I haven't decided). For the daily pages that have unresolved discussions, I'm going to move the unresolved discussions into a subpage of that subpage (for example, /Log/2005 May 20/Unresolved). I'll then transclude the unresolved subpages under the above mentioned section on the main CfD page, and also into the main daily log page. In theory, this will allow us to see the unresolved discussion on the main page without having to mess about with ones that are resolved, and will also allow someone viewing one of the daily logs to see all the discussions, resolved or not.
Just in case anyone is wondering what the hell I'm up to ... :) -- Azkar 01:15, 31 May 2005 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Included in the archive was the poll ending in September, 2004, about whether or not to merge WP:CFD and WP:VFD. The final result was no merger with the following final tally:
The issues of unresolved votes and getting enough people to pay attention to WP:CFD were also raised.
Jerzy (t) and I recently had a discussion about the rules for deleting categories. There seems to be a conflict between
I believe most people use CfD rather than Speedy to nominate categories for deletion for any reason including simple renames. To reduce the clutter in CfD, I propose we create a new category-based policy for "simple" category renaming similar to the speedy deletion policy. Template:Catmove and Category:Categories to be moved could be used for this purpose. With this approach, to rename a category {{catmove|New name}} would be added (with suitable text changes to catmove, including indicating that objections should be added to the category's talk page), and after 2 days with no objections anyone could recategorize the members of the old category to the new category and any admin could delete the old category after it's emptied. It would be convenient if there were a tool available at least to all admins to do the recategorizations, but until such a tool is widely available (Move this page should actually do this) Pearle can be used in the rare cases where a heavily populated category is renamed. In case it's not obvious, the essential advantage of a category-based approach is that it eliminates at least 2 edits of WP:CFD per category rename (one to list the request, one to remove the request when done). -- Rick Block 17:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To summarize my views on this:
This is what I would propose:
Anyone can move an article. The result is a redirect. If the original title for some reason absolutely should not exist, it can be nominated as a redirect for deletion. The reason categories are different is that, for a large category, if you move a large category and I disagree, it's not easy to restore the original category, since every article must be edited. I'd like to see a policy that for small categories (obviously we would have to define small—ten articles or less? fifteen? twenty?), anyone can simply move the articles to the new category and use Template:Categoryredirect on the old one. Since we have a more or less functional category "redirect", it shouldn't be necessary to go through Categories for deletion for simple moves. Redirects are "cheap" and don't need to be deleted unless there is something usually wrong with them. - Aranel ("Sarah") 18:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say, drop the CfD rule to 24 hours for all cases, and change the speedy delete text to point to the CfD policy, and encourage people to use the CFD tag, not the "delete" tag. We previously discussed what to do with empty categories, and we said that people should be given a chance to populate them. This implies that they should not be deleted without being listed on WP:CFD. -- Beland 00:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One thing that would really help get the page size down (which would make working on it a lot easier - saves, rendering, etc would all be faster) would be to deal with some of the old items which have accrued long lists of comments. I don't hang out here enough to feel comfortable tackling what are obviously tricky ones, but if one of the regulars could (while the rest of us do the mundane stuff) that would really be a help in getting the size down. Noel (talk) 05:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A suggestion - would it be better if this page was organised like the article vfd page - individual subpages for each category deletion candidate, so that comments can be posted on the separate pages rather than having to edit the main page each time?
Grutness|
hello?
08:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason this is particularly bad at the moment is that I have been out of town, and until recently I've been one of the only administrators to consistently work on taking care of this page. (There are some other folks who poke their heads in and some non-administrators who do excellent work.) I'll be back next week and then hopefully I can take care of the backlog.
If you want to get an old discussion off the main page and you're not sure what the consensus is, then you can archive it at unresolved (it is generally better to resolve an issue, but when we have this kind of backlog, it's good to be able to just get a discussion off the page). I even made a little personal template to use on the archive paegs. (See User:Aranel/unresolved.) Anyone can archive old discussions. - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since most of the nominations on this page are for renaming, I have made template:Cfr. Use it like this: {{cfr|newname}}
Comments? -- ssd 07:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Would it help, for organizational purposes here, to have tags to put on categories that are waiting to be emptied or moved? It might help to have a notice so that folks don't continue to use a doomed category. We could use the tags to create a sort of to-do list that would be independent of this page. This would be a lot easier to use for non-controversial moves and deletions—instead of removing an entry and adding it to the list at the bottom of the page requesting that it be emptied, then removing that entry later, we could just add the to-be-moved or to-be-emptied tag and remoev the entry here.
I would find this useful, but of course I'm a bit obsessive about organization. (Which, I suppose, is why I enjoy working on categories in the first place.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does WP:CFD put the newest at the top yet WP:IFD, WP:RFD, WP:PUI, WP:VFD, etc. add the newest to the bottom? Cburnett 17:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now that there's a template:cfr (which replaced template:catmove), how about a differentiable header/title field for categories to be renamed?
=== [[:Category:original name]] → [[:Category:proposed name]] ===
132.205.15.43 06:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
===[[:Category:original name]]=== :→ [[:Category:proposed name]]
If the template were changed to: [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:{{PAGENAME}} → {{1}}|this page's entry]] wouldn't that work? 132.205.15.43 00:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've went through the entire list at Uncategorised categories and have found many categories that are childless and uncategorised. Since they neither have children and they are not categorised anywhere, is it safe to assume that the category does not need to exist? Apart from someone typing in the exact name of the category or looking on a list of categories, no one will ever find them. Do I have to list every entry one by one? Can these qualify for a speedy? The editable list with notes is here, if anyone is interested: User:Jag123/Uncategorised categories -- jag123 15:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What's the minimum time? 3 months or 6 months? Is this 'policy' actually being observed by the people who participate in deleting categories? So what tag do I put in? -- jag123 04:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know it existed. That page should be listed on the special pages template as the editable version. -- jag123 18:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I destroyed by mistake the English version of page
ATC code A02 (overwrite to translate into french; I tought I was in the French section.
Please restore the previous English version
I am very sorry
Eras-mus 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For category titles that just have incorrect spelling or capitalization, I wonder whether if handling might be split off somehow from the more substantive changes. Some type of "speedy category rename" might be more efficient. Maurreen 06:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed the above mentioned page, and added the people who frequent here on that list. Go ahead and add/edit your entry there if you have nto already! -- ssd 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What does "Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion." means? Am I supposed to add the name of the category to it's article text? Paranoid 17:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The precedents accumulating under Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved should probably be fed back into Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and subpages, at some point. -- Beland 07:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The [[Category:Czech weapons]] (enter in search box; using link puts this page in the category) page says it is listed here, but I don't see it. It has in fact been renamed.
Weapons of the Czeck Republic is an idiotic category name for at least a couple of reasons:
Gene Nygaard 14:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are currently three strings of discussion over the use of the term "mainland China", namely Laws, Companies and Cities. They do demonstrate high degree of similarity, and many of the arguments are actually repeated in the three sections. I would like to suggest to have the discussions of these three sections to be combined and continued.
On the other hand, from the arguments and opinion that many contributors have provided, familiarity with the issue is far from satisfactory. Although everybody's opinion count and must be respected, Wikipedia is not a place for simple head counts. Collaboration and consensus building are based upon knowledge and familiarity. I am not saying it has now become mobocracy, but everyone knows it is undesirable, and we have to avoid it from happening. The issue is already on debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), and I believe it will be better dealt with, before bringing up here. — Insta ntnood 17:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved here from cfd:delete me:
The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete:
The following discussion has been moved here from cfd:delete me:
I deleted
Category:China geography stubs yesterday - someone revived it, so I've just deleted it a second time. If it's revived again, it should be investigated...
Grutness|
hello?
00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
CFD is now getting quite big. Uploading during peak hours often results in congestion and leads to the error message. Would it be possible to have this page restructured, like votes for deletion, with separate pages for each section? — Insta ntnood 06:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
On the same note, I believe the page may become more legible if it is split into two pages - one for deleting categories and another for renaming them. The former is often subject to some discussion and the latter is usually pretty straightforward. Any thoughts on this? Radiant _* 13:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of the vfd-style subpages. I think it would be a good thing for this page.
Grutness|
hello?
02:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, the page is somewhat restructured thanks to the recent discussion and a bot by AllyUnion. Specifically, there is a subpage for each day (all transcluded) and one for speedy renames (also transcluded for now). However, there remains the question what should be done when an entry is finished - does it still get moved to /resolved or /unresolved? Should perhaps the bot move all transclude pages older than a week onto /unresolved?
R adiant _* 09:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
/unresolved is supposed to be for pages that a cleanup person could not resolve. It used to be that discussions no one had bothered trying to resolve would just pile up at the bottom of the page. Where am I supposed to find the to-be-closed discussions now? -- Beland 01:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've closed everything from the 2nd to the 12th(?). I didn't move anything to /resolved or /unresolved from those dates. I just left them on the day pages, but removed the transclusion from CfD. The links to those pages are at the top of CfD, like on VfD. Is that what you mean? -- Kbdank71 01:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Popular songs was ignorantly deleted as it lacked a definition and non-music editors did not realize the obvious one, found at popular music. Perhaps the category should be renamed Category:Popular music songs, but it should not have been deleted. Hyacinth 01:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(moved from CfD) Category:Consonant --> Category:Consonants
--
Is this something we want to bring up again for discussion and vote? -- Kbdank71 13:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(copied from CfD - Delete Me)
I'm a little confused. It appears that "News trade" was taken off the "Delete me" list without being deleted. Maurreen 07:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A category is proposed to delete. Five people vote, 3 to delete, 2 to keep. The 2 to keep feel strongly about it. After seven days someone (who voted to delete) deleted it.
I thought policy was that underexposed, and controversial deletes should be kept until further votes got a clear consensus? I don't think five votes gets you consensus when a single vote would change it. SchmuckyTheCat 02:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I am EXTREMELY peeved that this was discussed and resolved without anybody ever even attempting to contact me, as the person who created most of these categories in the first place. My reasoning for creating the categories was as follows:
But above all else, the bottom line is that this should never have been discussed without somebody advising me that it was up for debate, and somebody owes me an explanation. Bearcat 03:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Following discussion moved from CfD:
If you would like to receive notification that a given category has been nominated for deletion, I think the thing to is to watchlist the category. We here at CFD try very hard to make sure all categories nominated for deletion are tagged so that watchlists will trigger. We presume that this will notify anyone who cares strongly one way or the other. Occasionally, we need to use a bot to tag categories for bulk renames, and it's not really feasible to contact all the creators in those situations. Personally, I've created a lot of categories I'd prefer that I not be contacted about. If I do care, I watchlist. Otherwise, I don't. -- Beland 03:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I too, am very upset that this happened, and more upset about HOW it happened. I don't know of any policy about RESTORING categories, so unless someone points me to a policy about this, I am going to BE BOLD and create one on the spot. My new policy is:
Had this been merely an article edit, the changes would have been restored immediately. It seems reasonable that category changes have the possibility of a quick revert. If someone then wants to restart the CfD process they can, but there will obviously be more people involved the next time around.
I already count more than 5 votes to restore. The person who created the Bot says it can also be restored with a bot. I will wait 3 days for discussion here about my new policy and if there is no other resolution, I will assume there is consensus to proceed and ask him to implement the restoration. -- Samuel Wantman 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we just post a nomination for undeletion and on the main page? In fact, I'll do it right now. -- Beland 23:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I note from the archived discussion that there were 5 votes to keep the categorisation and only 4 to delete (one changed from delete to keep). As such they should have been kept and at worst (if miscounted) it was not a clearcut decision. Deletion should never rely on just the votes, but on the validity of the reasoning behind them too. Yes, there are some people who will hate every category we use on here (probably just leaves us with "aniumal","vegetable","mineral","place", and "person") but these were clearly valid and very useful categories. Resinstate ASAP! -- Vamp: Willow 23:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Two other points from the above discusison. Most editors use categories, we don't create them, and this once we get used to using them we expect them to stay there and continue to be available for use. In respect of the sub-categories stupidity, many many articles have multiple category entries. An entry needing Category:Italian-American LGBT musicians would, of course, actually be tagged Category:LGBT people, Category:musicians and Category:Italian-Americans (or equivalents)! -- Vamp: Willow 23:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
please sign contributions. thankyou. ( Vamp: Willow)
There exists no consensus (so far as I'm aware—please point me at the relevant policy page if you disagree) as to what to do when presenting both a question (delete category) and subquestions (delete subcategories) for vote at the same time without specifying whether the question is controlling. In this case, it appears that the wording at the time assumed that:
This is contrary to every rule of consensus or parliamentary procedure I've ever heard of. If you have subquestions, you consider them if and only if the overall question is approved. You can't have something happen because of the lack of response, but that's exactly what happened here. The folks who voted to keep the category just naturally assumed that they didn't have to vote on the subcategories, while the folk who voted to delete the category voted to delete the subcategories too. This is cockeyed and backwards. This—along with the overall issue of visibility of CfD—is why there's such an outcry—it just feels sneaky.
The other problem with this vote was presenting a passel of categories all at once and holding a single vote on them. In parliamentary law, as soon as the first person indicated that they wanted the question to be severable, as Deco did, the overall vote would no longer be valid. I understand that Wikipedia does not work under parliamentary law, but the principle holds: it's hard to imagine a reason to continue with the vote as a whole when someone had indicated that they didn't see the whole as a cohesive question.
The right thing to do would have been to have the first question ("delete cat and subcats"), and then after it failed, bring up the subquestion ("delete subcats"). To do otherwise is as senseless as a country voting on several resolutions "shall John be made President? Shall Alice? Shall Mary?" simultaneously, and just assuming that everyone knows what happens when more than one of the resolutions pass. TreyHarris 22:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
(Moved from CfD):
Since alot of the cfr renames are actually category mergers, I think that a new template may be in order template:cfm Categories for merging ; And jointly with this would be a template:cfmf Merge from notice at the destination, to allow navigation from there, and to alert destination's users about an influx of articles. What do you think? 132.205.15.43 21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Categories for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]
As I understand it, the theory of CfD is that categories are just a special kind of article, and so the current notification on the category page should be sufficient.
But categories aren't, in general, used as articles; they're used within other articles. From that standpoint, they aren't so much like articles as like templates.
Note that Wikipedia:Templates for deletion specifies:
I think it's clear that we desperately need such a visibility mechanism for CfD on categorized pages, too. I'd like to start a discussion here on what mechanisms might be available. Without changing MediaWiki source to allow for some new mechanism, the only one that immediately springs to my mind is a bot populating categorized talk pages with a CfD notice. Someone earlier suggested an asterisk next to the names of categories that are up for deletion. (I think that would require a new feature in MediaWiki, but maybe I'm wrong.) What are some other possibilities?
I think the qualities of such a mechanism should be:
Any other criteria? TreyHarris 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Categories: *CFD*:CategoryName:*CFD* |
? 132.205.15.43 22:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
{{{cfd}}
or some such, like for vfd; then it could easily delete it again when voting's over—luckily it could delete it regardless of the results, so the code wouldn't be too complicated.
TreyHarris 22:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)I was asked to participate in this discussion. Adding a template to all articles within a category that is going to be deleted seems unnecessary work. Because you'll have to go back to remove the template once the CfD voting is over with. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There has been a push to remove subcategories of people such as LGBT composers, Jewish American authors, etc... To quote Postdlf:
I do think Postdlf has a valid argument here. However, I believe that part of the genesis for this conflict is because of the rigidly held view that articles cannot be in both subcategories and supercategories. I've been arguing for changing this rule for months at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and I think we may have a compromise that says that articles CAN sometimes be in both super and sub-categories. This is an attempt to address just this concern.
This problem comes about because there are multiple category hierarchies in Wikipedia and sometimes the subcategories of one hierarchy can also be thought of as subcategories of another. In the LGBT case, the people working on LGBT categories were not attempting to ghettoize LGBT people, but just trying to create categories they find useful. Others think this makes the supercategories LESS useful. I don't believe the solution is to remove the subcategories. The solution is to make clear guidelines for when there can be duplication. Here is the compromise:
I'm moving this discussion from the speedy rename section to preserve.
Since no one moved to remove the entry from the speedy rename section, I went ahead and moved the articles to the originally proposed title. If anyone wants to propose an alternate title, they are - of course - still free to do so in the main section. -- Azkar 00:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Azkar proposed ( [3]) that "Conversions from singular to plural (or back)" be added to the Speedy Renaming criteria. I second the motion, and am listing it here for discussion and consensus. If there are no objections within one week, it should be instated as such. R adiant _* 08:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Template:Cfd-howto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Cfd-howto. Thank you. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:55, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
The consensus from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4 is to rename the category, but there were a couple of different suggestions being bantered around. I thought one of the better ones was Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people. This was by User:Kbdank71
Could discussion on this please continue further up this page where the matter is already being discussed. Part of the problem has been the number of different locations this to'ing and fro'ing has got on WP. Thanks. ps. "LGBT people" will work a lot beter than having it spelt out and possible capitalisation and ordering issues causing problems. -- Vamp: Willow 14:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought that was for the subcategories. -- Kbdank71 14:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Category:American people by occupation has 58 subcategories. Of these, 11 start with "U.S.", 3 start with "United States", and the rest start with "American." I am requesting a community consensus on coming up with a consistent naming of these categories. Personally, I would prefer "U.S." if we were starting from scratch, since it is less typing, but would be satisfied with "American" because it is in the parent category and also requires that fewer existing links be changed. — RussBlau 17:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Was there a reason for changing the titles on CfD? -- Kbdank71 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There is an off by one error in the transcludes. Click on Edit for "Pseudo-protected" and I find myself editing "Navigational Rallying", etc. Some of the categories aren't listed on the main CfD page because of this. Please to be fixing.
To counter instruction creep and repetitive discussion, I would like to propose the following:
if a category is generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo Stub), and that template is deleted by regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template.
I finally worked out it should be
Paul foord 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
This is a notification that NekoDaemon will now automatically archive the 7 day ago transinclude and turn it into a link into the Old infobox. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies has not been updated to document the newfangled transcluded way of doing things, so I'm confused as to where I can find "categories that it has been decided that they should be deleted but they haven't yet" and "discussions that have passed the normal closure period but haven't been adjudicated yet". -- Beland 01:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
A number of weeks ago, after a lengthy vote and discussion, Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted. However, I have just noticed that there is still this category: Category:Islamic terrorist organizations, which would have been a subcategory of the other. Why wasn't this also deleted? Don't tell me we have to have a separate vote on every subcategory; there can't possibly be a rationale for deleting the parent category and not its offspring. -- Viajero 02:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Template:cfd top says: This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the category below, but it actually deals with the debate about the category listed above. I'd have changed the wording myself, but thought I'd bring it up for comment here first. Grutness... wha? 01:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
After a proposal for a "stub messages for deletion" page was met with generally positive sentiments on the Village Pump, I have written up a draft in my userspace:
Since this infringes on the jurisdiction of this page (Stub messages consist of a template and a category), you might want to leave any comments/praises/flames/general disagreement on the talk page. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, folks. I haven't seen Kbdank71 around in a few days, so I'm going to go ahead and close some of the older discussions. Just giving a brief look at the bottom of the page, there are a few discussions that don't really look like they're finished yet. Since we're getting quite a bit of clutter, though, with the discussions that are closed, I'm going to try and tidy things up a bit.
I'm going to create a new section called "Unresolved after seven days" (or something like that - I haven't decided). For the daily pages that have unresolved discussions, I'm going to move the unresolved discussions into a subpage of that subpage (for example, /Log/2005 May 20/Unresolved). I'll then transclude the unresolved subpages under the above mentioned section on the main CfD page, and also into the main daily log page. In theory, this will allow us to see the unresolved discussion on the main page without having to mess about with ones that are resolved, and will also allow someone viewing one of the daily logs to see all the discussions, resolved or not.
Just in case anyone is wondering what the hell I'm up to ... :) -- Azkar 01:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)