![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Apparently an editor is changing some of the BC categories to BCE. I found this in Confucius. The issue is that if this action renaming to a red linked category. his is a problem when other editors nominate the emptied categories for deletion. I need to do some digging to find out which editor is doing this which I consider to be WP:POV. But if anyone has a bot to look for the red linked BCE categories and rename them, that would probably be a good thing. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, the unofficial "CFD-is-broken tracker" has spit out its final numbers for all of 2009: here. [1]
Summary: There were 5536 CFDs and 37 DRVs (0.69%). The DRV results indicted that about two-thirds of the 37 appealed CFDs were "unproblematic" in the way they were closed, while the other third were closed in a way that was somehow "problematic". 0.22% of all CFDs were "problematic". 0.11% of DRVs were "clearly wrong" (overturned at DRV).
Congratulations, CFD closers. You did the unproblematic thing 99.78% of the time; and you avoided doing the clearly wrong thing 99.89% of the time.
Of course, the closers couldn't have done so well without the collaborative work of everyone who worked to build consensus in the thousands of CFDs, day after day. Nice job. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Good Olfactory.
Same point as before, but dividing the numbers by a large number of CfDs that were not deletion discussions is perhaps unfair to a true analysis. I'd prefer to see raw numbers. Looking at User:Good_Olfactory#Unofficial_.22CFD-is-broken.22_tracker, I find column 12 '% "problematic" of DRV total' the most meaningful. Does it mean that problem CfD closures are specific to northern-non-winter time? That said ...
Speaking from the top of my head, on gut feel from DRV, the problematic closures that seemed to be be over-represented from CfD, no longer seem noticeable. So, as per Good Olfactory (do you have a name, as opposed to a characteristic), congratulations to the closers, and thanks to all participants.
Note that I moved myself from Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken to Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants.
For anyone who disapproves of my style of capitallisations in abbreviations, feel free to point me to a guideline (or even better, an article!), and I will be pleased to be educated.
Happy New Year. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. If this data is to have any meaning, the routine renames and the one-sided deletions need to be segregated out. The fact that it is theoretically possible to challenge a rename hardly justifies stacking the deck. Anyone notice that 97.78% of discussions at CfD are rather routine renames, ones that should be speedyable? A significant percentage of the remainder are rather routine deletions, where the overwhelming majority of participants vote to delete. Somewhere about 1-2% are "discussions" where some participants vote to keep and others vote to delete. These are the ones where admins have been making some rather strikingly bad calls. As DRV will only overturn if the rotten egg smell levels wafting from the bad call are even higher than usual, the fact that half (.11% out of the .22% that went to DRV) of these stinkingly bad calls were overturned is further evidence that we have very little to be proud of here at CfD. We have made progress this year. Some of the most problematic admins have moved on and/or left close calls to more unbiased admins, bringing the problem levels down as the year progressed. But the problems are far from gone. Alansohn ( talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the recommended procedure to take with the categories listed in the "Categories possibly emptied out of process" section? Repopulate them if possible and delete it if you can't (as when the articles were deleted)? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As of the writing, there are 71 open CfDs that are waiting to be closed, 37 of which are more than two weeks old. By contrast WP:AFD, which averages more than 100 deletion discussions per day, has eight open discussions, all of which are for January 10, the day that just rolled off of the week-long cycle. The simplest solution is to close all of these discussions as no consensus and move on. Far too often, these discussions are relisted days or weeks after the seven-day limit and are then closed arbitrarily once the vote needed to just tip the scales barely in one direction is cast, whereupon its closed.
We need to craft some policy so that there is some clarity and transparency in how these stale cases are closed. I suggest that CfDs that do not have a consensus after a week be relisted immediately and kept open for a second week; Those CfDs that remain uncloseable as either keep or delete after a second week should be closed as no consensus after the completion of a second full week. Given how few discussions there are at CfD, especially compared to the far more substantial case load at AfD, there is no justification for so many open discussions staying open so long after the one-week period, nor is there any rationale for when and why CfDs are closed under the present arbitrary process. Alansohn ( talk) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Now we're up to 81 open CfDs that are stale and waiting to be closed, 37 of which are more than two weeks old. AfD has ten times more discussions per day with ten times as many participants in the average discussion, yet only one-tenth as many deletion debates open after the one-week deadline. Does AfD have 100 times more admins working closes or are the admins at CfD just unwilling to either make "difficult" closes or simply close as no consensus. Alansohn ( talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been proposed before, but at least I couldn't find it in the archives. I propose adding a new speedy criterion:
8. Renaming a category to match the name of a corresponding article, except if the speedy renaming has been contested in the past or if renaming the category has already been discussed at a full CfD.
In my experience a lot of these renames are uncontroversial and only need to go through CfD because we have no other mechanism to rename categories. Remember that standard article naming conventions do apply to category names, so in most cases there's no need to have the same discussion twice (first on the article's talk page, and then at CfD for the corresponding article).
Examples of this kind of discussions are listed below. As you can see, there are a lot of these, and the overwhelming majority are uncontested. That's why I think a speedy criterion would make it more straightforward for people working on these articles to get categories renamed, and it could also improve the quality of CfD discussions since a smaller proportion of the proposals would be uncontroversial renames. Any thoughts? Jafeluv ( talk) 13:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Examples of successful nominations from December 2009
|
---|
|
Perhaps somebody would be willing to compile a survey of say one month, how many of this type of rename have been accepted and how many rejected. There seems to be more agreement with this proposal than disagreement, but some hard figures may be more indicative of how desirable this is. Debresser ( talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added some data above about rejected nominations. While I was at it, I added some successful nominations that I had missed earlier. Here are the numbers:
Note that I've counted "Someone argued for deletion, but did not contest renaming" as a contested nomination, since that sort of thing would likely go to through a full CfD anyway. Jafeluv ( talk) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Encompassing, I think, the above suggestion, I think that speedy renames should be doable with the agreement of the category creator. This should cover most non-controversial renames. A speedy rename should be easier to obtain than WP:CSD#G7. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A large reorganization of Category:Primates has been proposed and discussed on WT:PRIMATE. The final scheme (second one posted under WT:PRIMATE#Scheme, or shown more clearly below) will involve the following:
All other changes involve simple category creations and the re-categorization of numerous primate articles, which I'm willing to do manually once I get the green light here.
The new scheme will look like this:
Please either leave comments and/or let me know how to proceed. And a quick note: the term "non-human primate" is a technical term that is very useful in this case... otherwise "Fictional primates" and "Famous primates" would include humans as well. So, please, no taking jabs at the convoluted name unless you genuinely want to include Category:Fictional characters and the deleted Category:Famous people. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see WT:Deletion today. Simply south ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion review for a recent CFD: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 6#Category:Scandals with -gate suffix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it okay to speedily process a proposal that meets the speedy rename/merge criteria, but was proposed at a full CfD instead? That is, if after two days there are no objections, can the nomination just be closed as speedy rename/merge? I'm asking because it seems Altenmann moved some categories from a full CfD to a parallel speedy nomination, in order "not to waste people's time". Can't we just document it at WP:CFDS that a CfD meeting the speedy criteria that has no objections can be speedily processed just like if it was nominated for speedy in the first place? It would be a simpler solution for everyone. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this is clear evidence of having far too much time on my hands, but here goes...
Looking through the speedy criteria as presently constituted, they seem to fall into three broad classes: enforcement of category tree conventions, enforcement of general wikipedia naming conventions, and typographical fixes.
My outline view is that all the 7 criteria we presently have could be brought under these three headings as follows:
The criteria within each of these groups are closely related (eg spelling mistakes (No.1), capitalisation fixes (No.2), and conversion between dashes and hyphens (No.7) - each of these three are separate forms of what could be more generally described as 'typographical fixes'); why not join them together? The criteria and their order is the result of ad-hoc revision and alteration over the past few years. If something has looked good and been agreed to, it has been added to the bottom of the list. Therefore, a few years down the line, we find that there is no real structure to it. So, all that said, what is the general view on revising the criteria to develop some sort of logical framework?
A quick-and-dirty attempt at merger follows. I would suggest something along these lines as a new WP:CSD#C2:
A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
B. A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
C. A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
Xdamr talk 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic stuff, it looks like we're all generally content. I'll swap over the current seven criteria with the three above.
A point on naming. All the speedy rename criteria are currently expressed as sub-clauses of WP:CSD#C2. That being the case I've gone with letters A to C instead of numbers. C2A looks a bit better that C2(1) (as a form of shorthand reference) and it does present a clear break with the Nos. 1 to 7 system. Hopefully this will avoid any confusion between the new and the 'legacy' criteria. These three new ones are reachable via the usual CSD-style shortcuts - eg WP:CSD#C2A. All that said, if anyone has another opinion, or wants to go wild and name then X, Y, and Z, I'm sure it can be discussed.
More generally, the new merged criteria could probably benefit from a little polishing and rewording here and there, but that can be tomorrow's problem...
Xdamr talk 21:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like I've run into a little problem. When closing this discussion, I failed to notice that Category:Football (soccer) stubs was in the mix. As we all should know, stub categories are supposed to be nominated over at WP:SFD. So anyways, I went over to add the Association football and several other categories for processing in WP:CFDW, only to realize much later of the aforementioned stub category. I spotted it before the bot was able to get to it and, in order to avoid any mistakes, removed it. So basically, what is the procedure to be done now? Should the stub category be relisted at SFD or can it run its course here at CfDW? — ξ xplicit 09:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Category:Christian university organizations was emptied without first going to CFD. Now I'm happy to get the editor who emptied the categories to list this here, but I'm curious how you put back all the articles into the category should the deletion decision be to keep the category. Is this possible at all? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've virtually never participated in the CFD process before and came here because I noticed what appeared to be a silly category name ( Category:Sailboat names) that, one way or another, should not be used, and I wanted to do something about that. I think I did succeed in nominating the category for merging, but it seems to me there's some significant room for improvement in the instructions for nominating a CFD, and that the directions are longer and more confusing than they need to be. If I were a less-experienced editor, I think it's quite possible I would just have given up, or tried to complete the nomination without understanding whether I was actually doing it right.
Here are the things I wanted to point out:
Sorry this got so long and wordy. Some of these, I think I could take a shot at improving myself, but I'm quite hesitant to jump in because, as I said, I have next-to-zero familiarity with the CFD process. I'm trying to help by providing an outsiders' perspective here. I'm hoping someone who does understand what users should do will take an interest in improving the way instructions are imparted. Propaniac ( talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that discussions about any specific category should not start at CFD.
Editors normally start discussions of issues at the most relevant talk page for the specific concern before taking to a larger platform. Consider WP:BEFORE for articles. The principle of trying to resolve any real or percieved problems at the lowest level should also apply to categories. Maurreen ( talk) 16:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the old UCFD templates have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 22
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, an article move has been requested for Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (US), that you may be interested in, because of all the possible category renames that would ripple out from such a decision. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like business is not so speedy after all down at 'Speedy'. Hello -o -o- o? Cavila ( talk) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Where should I go to get input on naming a set of maintenance categories? Is CfD the correct place? I chose the poor name Category:Copied uses without oldid for certain instances of {{ Copied}}, and I want advice on improving it before creating related categories. Flatscan ( talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to rename the above category to something like Category:English football, defender, 1880s birth stubs in order to not try and infer nationality when it may not be known, having already changed the explanatory text at the associated template ( Template:England-footy-defender-1880s-stub). Some discussion on this has been posted at [2]. I'd like to try and get some agreement/understanding of whether the above change is likely to be acceptable, and would then look to change many more similar stub categories accessed from [3], and ultimately the same for other countries as well. I'd welcome any comments - am I best adding the above change to the CfD proposals page, should I refer to the other proposed changes at the same time? Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is Category:Images of curves and Gallery of curves. I don't think we need both of these. Suggestions for how to handle this? Thanks, Btyner ( talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Merge gallery of curves to list of curves, which currently doesn't have any images. postdlf ( talk) 12:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wondering if we want to have the tree Category:People by secondary school? We also have Category:People by high school in Taiwan and Category:People by secondary school in Canada. Mayumashu ( talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have categories for birth and death years? Maurreen ( talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a suggestion this should be merged with Category:Luxembourgian architecture. Well, my first reaction is, I woúld never have thought there might be a category Luxembourgian architecture when I was trying to find a suitable one for my article(s). The natural term is of course Luxembourg architecture - and that's why I added it. If you do a Google search for "Luxembourg architecture" (in quotes) you get 5,400 hits. If you search for "Luxembourgian architecture" you get 115 with the WP category at the top! Luxembourgian is not an adjective used here in Luxembourg. In fact it sounds very pretentious. So let's call a spade a spade and have Luxembourg architecture, just as everyone else calls it. Then you can merge the few existing instances of Luxembourgian architecture into Luxembourg architecture. -- Ipigott ( talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This comment refers to my nomination to speedily merge the newly-created Category:Luxembourg architecture with Category:Luxembourgian architecture, which has existed since June 2008. See WP:CFDS where the nomination is listed. I'm kind of agnostic at this point on the issue of which adjective would be preferable, but if there is a desire to change it, a rename should formally be proposed. Creating a differently named new category to compete with the already existing one that uses the standard adjective used throughout WP isn't the way to go about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Does somebody know the procedure to get Category:Marc Claproth either moved to User:Marc94clap or a subpage there or to article space or deleted. Looks like he created an article about himself in category space. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 06:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually looks like he has it both in user space and category space--if this isn't a speedy deletion in category namespace, it should be, but I can't figure out a classification for it. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 07:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember the details, but someone suggested developing a guideline about cats (for people by occupation?) for the 20th and 21st centuries. The same idea might be extended for other centuries.
I'm thinking a guideline might be developed based on expected size -- not too big but not too small. For instance, the high number of modern actors would make them ineligible for cats for the 20th and 21st centuries, but possibly eligible for earlier centuries. In a probably hypthetical example, a moderate number of notable glassblowers throughout history might make them eligible for several century cats. Maurreen ( talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions currently reads:
When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. Scripts such as User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD automate the process.
While this makes sense for a process like AfD, where each article has its own deletion discussion page, I do not think that it works for CfD, which operates on the basis of deletion discussion sections within daily log pages. When a CfD nomination is initiated, incoming links to that day's log page are created by the CfD tagging templates (i.e., {{ cfd}}, {{ cfr}}, {{ cfm}}, and {{ cfc}}) and any notifications (e.g., using {{ cfd-notify}}). When a CfD nomination is relisted, it is helpful to take steps to ensure that those incoming links will continue to be useful.
So, I suggest the following two-step process for relisting CfD discussions:
==== Category:Example ==== :{{relisted}} [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Example]]. ~~~~
If there is support for this idea, I propose adding a short paragraph or subsection (perhaps in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes) with the following text (or something similar):
Discussions at CfD should, when necessary, be relisted in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions, with one qualification: when removing a discussion from the log for its original date, the section heading of the discussion should be preserved and a link to the location of the relisted discussion added. For example:
==== Category:Example ==== :{{relisted}} [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Example]]. ~~~~
Comments? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, the guidance at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria said to tag a category with {{ db-c2}} ... even though the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here said to use {{ subst:Cfr-speedy|new name}}.
I only spotted this yesterday, when some categories listed for speedy renaming had been deleted. I then noticed that {{ db-c2}} causes a category to be placed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where some editors unsurprisingly just deleted it. This had even happened to categories which had already been renamed, because Cydebot does not remove the {{ db-c2}} tag.
I have changed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria so that it now recommends {{ subst:Cfr-speedy|new name}} ... but do we actually need {{ db-c2}}? I think that it should be redirected to {{ Cfr-speedy}}, because the current db-c2 gives no warning of the need to list categories for 48 hours before the renaming is done. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go ahead and put {{ db-c2}} up for deletion.
We have just had a huge batch of college football categories listed at CfD 2010 April 2, but tagged with {{ db-c2}} and speedily renamed by cydebot (see e.g. Category:1911 NCAA College football season. None of the speedy criteria was cite or met, and while I hope that the nominator was merely unaware of how things should be done, this episode demonstrates that {{ db-c2}} is incompatible with existing processes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
see discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station
I will need to tag these categories for renaming and all subcategories :
The format is "Category:Disused xxxxxxxx" to be renamed "Category:Defunct xxxxxxxx"
Is there are machine or bot that can help with this? also when I list them in "categories for discussion" do I need to list all the sub-categories, or can I just list the top 4 categories (there are no exception categories within)? Thanks. Shortfatlad ( talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Minor disagreement over format of {{ Cfr-speedy}}.
Comments sought at Template talk:Cfr-speedy#Format_of_text_to_be_pasted_into_WP:CFD.2FS. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:12, 11 April 2010
I have filed a request for a bot (see here) to tag large numbers of categories nominated as part of group nominations. Comments and suggestions are welcome. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Cydebot is screwing things up. It made this edit (Speedily moving category German-American sportspeople to American sportspeople of German descent per CFD). Which is incorrect. Those or two ENTIRELY different categories. German-American sportspeople is for sports players who play in Germany and America. American Sportspeople of German Descent is a completely different catagory. Please help make sure the bot didn't add incorrect catagories to any more pages. RF23 ( talk) 19:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
One of these discussion completely lost focus, and when on to talk about a million things at once, could someone close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7#Category:Wikipedia:Other Books and all other discussions related to Wikipedia books as "no consensus/procedural close" or whatever's appropriate, so I can resubmit them as more focused requests which reflects the recent updates in software? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please close the Wikipedia books nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7 (3 noms) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books (6 noms grouped into one section). The April 7 nominations can be closed procedurally as having been superseded by the April 27 nominations, but their content can provide context for the April 27 nominations. I just now added a full, formatted list of categories nominated in the two group nominations to rename or delete user books by topic and community books by topic. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ cfc}} and {{ cfl}} have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Cydebot speedily moved Category:Texas rock music groups to Category:Rock music groups from Texas on May 31st. [4] I'm wondering whether any of the moved articles might have been categorized under "Texas rock..." as a genre of music, as opposed to "Texas... music groups" as a geographical designation. In particular, the two articles Bloodline (band) and Five Americans don't seem to explicitly state that they were formed in Texas. Could someone look into this? - dcljr ( talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of suggesting that a category be renamed, but before I do, I want to make sure I'm not volunteering for a bunch of tedious manual editing :-) So: if the rename proposal is adopted, is there a tool that will change all the category tags in all the articles within the category to reflect the new name? (BTW: if that is an automated process, that fact should probably be mentioned in the Project Page to help future users understand the process better. The "Procedure" section has steps 1,2,3 to get the rename/delete started, but users may want to know what happens after that. Maybe add a Step 4? ). -- Noleander ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best place to raise this, but I'm requesting help cleaning up a category. Category:Christian terms has over 1000 pages. An anonymous editor, over the years, has been adding tons and tons of junk to this category. As it stands, I believe the scope of the category is way too broad, and was wondering if anyone wanted to help take on the daunting task of cleaning it up, and/or setting some clear boundaries/guidelines for inclusion. I'd be glad to post this elsewhere if anyone has suggestions. - Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Where did common sense go in this debate ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 24#Category:Conductors)? There are thousands of articles on conductors related to music and the word is most commonly used in everyday conversation in a musical context. Why then, when there are only a very small number of articles on train conductors (less than 50), was the category disambiguated for music and not for the train conductors. It seems much more obvious to not dissambiguate the most common usage of the cat but to use an alternative naming for "train conductors" (probabably "category:train conductors" would work great). I would strongly suggest re-thinking this decision. I hope I am raising my complaint in the right place. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, when starting the Cfx-steps, I was enthousiastic. I know something in wikipedia. A great line up and steps provided here, compared to my last CfD a year ago or so. But In the end I made a mess like this. Quite intimidating stuff (intermediate problems skipped). In general: It takes 44 lines in the process here, and then another unknown actions along the way. Just after I reached my 5000-edit remark, Wikipedia makes me feel stupid. - DePiep ( talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
{{CFD nomination | action = <!-- "delete", "listify", "merge" or "rename" --> | category = <!-- Using the format "Category:PAGENAME" --> | target = <!-- if applicable, the name of the target page to which the category is to be listified, merged or renamed --> | reason = <!-- the rationale for the change --> | sig = ~~~~ }}
Look at Category:Canton of Zürich - you'll see some subcategories with "canton", others with "Canton"; some with "Zürich", others with "Zurich". (There is even a duplicated category.) The issue with canton vs. Canton applies to other cantons as well. Can someone sort this out without the need to spend time tagging and listing all these categories? (I presume it should be "Zürich" with the umlaut, since that's what the article's called; and "canton" with the lower-case "c" seems more popular - I'll ask someone from the Swiss project to confirm.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, why is it that when a category is renamed, the old name is completely deleted, rather than being left as a {{ category redirect}}? Secondly, when categories are renamed, is it not possible to actually move the existing category page, rather than creating a new category with identical content? That way, the new name will be added to the watchlists of those editors who have the old name watchlisted. - htonl ( talk) 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like speedy requests are getting to be very large these days. Based on this, I think we should specifically ban collapsed requests. These serve no purpose other then to make observing what is being listed harder to see. Since these get very little review, they all should be listed in plain sight. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In lieu of starting what would undoubtedly be a complex CfD (or at the very least, not doing so unless others think I should) can someone give me a bit of guidance on how to categorise Lee Hodson?
On account of playing for the national team, he clearly has a connection to Northern Ireland. But he was born, and has always lived, in England, so Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland does not seem appropriate. He is categorised with Category:Northern Ireland under-21 international footballers, and on account of that I removed Category:English footballers (the rationale being that he has explicitly identified himself as Northern Irish by playing for that team).
My gut reaction is to nominate Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland to be renamed as Category:Northern Ireland association footballers. But while I'm normally bold, I'm aware that I may be going over old ground. Thanks in advance, WFC ( talk) 23:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to renominate all the subcategories of Category:Species by year of formal description of the type "described in" to "named in" (this is more precise and avoids issues with species that were described before they got their names). As requested on the main CFD page, I'm asking for help with tagging here. Ucucha 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Which looks like it hasn’t been updated in a while, including to comply with this year’s changes to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates. Clarifications also needed. While most is cleanup, there are specific proposals to clarify cases where categories are using “Disclaimers” to try to get around the fact that inclusion of the category implies the person has a poor reputation. (For example see Category:Antisemitism and Category:Homophobia.) For hard core categorization junkies :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Ie., Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda recruiters, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators
WP:BLP says For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Since these people assumedly are considered criminals, and they have not been convicted, they shouldn't be in such a category. If they've admitted to it they belong in some other category. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
.... can get some help from other editors regarding the discussion at Category talk:American beauty pageant winners ??? Some guidance from an experienced categories editor is much needed but it doesn't really fall into any category here and I don't know where to take it to. Thanks PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't figure out where to post the CfD or how to characterize it. Help? The problem category is Category:Pigs, which has as its nominal scope the pig family Suidae but also contains a lot of stuff such as articles about pig husbandry, pig breeds, and notable individual pigs. For some reason Category:Suidae is unused and soft redirects to Category:Pigs. How to fix this mess? 69.3.72.249 ( talk) 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In this discussion I just closed, this argument was ventured: "on the grounds that it is too soon to bring this up for discussion again." User:Good Olfactory replied, "If there is no consensus one way or the other at the end of a discussion how can it ever be 'too soon' to raise the issue again?" It might be worth discussing whether different closes lead to different lengths of time that a close should be honored. I'm not sure I want hard and fast rules, but I wonder if folks could be comfortable with 6 months on a "keep" or "delete," and 2 months on a "no consensus"? Or maybe "no consensus" means it can be brought up again immediately? I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't this section transclude Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto? __ meco ( talk) 08:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A new editor, User:RPekař, is rapidly creating categories for every opera composer, even if the person has only composed one opera. The guidelines say not to create categories for things that have only a few members and that are not likely to grow. I left him a message, but what should be done about this WP:OVERCATegorization? All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The instructions for nominating categories through the CfD process are quite long, and editors routinely post comments which suggest that the CfD process is in need of simplification (e.g. ' Category names with hyphens misused after "ly"' and ' Great when I started, ugly at the finish'). Much of the instructions concern the use of the various CfD tagging and nomination templates.
I created {{ Cfd nomination}} as a possible replacement for {{ Cfd2}}, {{ Cfr2}}, {{ Cfm2}} and {{ Cfc2}}. The new template has all of the functionality of the other four, but requires only one set of instructions, and so I propose that the four old templates be gradually deprecated: update the instructions, tag the templates as deprecated, and eventually (perhaps after a few months) delete them. Any thoughts? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not just use cfd2? this page was renamed categories for discussion awhile back. If anything we might just want to adjust the language in template:cfd to make clear that it's not just for deletion outcomes. - jc37 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I found the instructions somewhat difficult to understand, so I am listing here the categories which I am mentioning for renaming, together with the target names. WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, point 4, says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb". I mentioned these categories earlier, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Category names with hyphens misused after "ly" (permanent link here). The last one on this list here has an additional error in the fact that "clean up" ( verb phrase) should be "cleanup" ( noun adjunct). I started redirecting them, but encountered difficulties, and that is why some of the target pages are shown with blue links.
Incidentally, I noticed in the interlanguage links the same error in the Simple English Wikipedia.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I recently found that a category had been speedily moved. But there was a link to this category, and it wasn't updated to point to the new category. Shouldn't that be a requirement of the bot or human doing the move? Powers T 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can these be listed in the speedy queue to have the bot empty the red categories? I guess this may also be a two part answer question if the basic answer is no. What about for categories that have already been deleted? Can these be listed at speedy deletion? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we agree that it is desirable for there to be automatic (bot) notification of the category creator when the category is listed at CfD. If we do agree, then we can ask someone capable to make it so.
This follows-up a brief conversation at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_14#Category:Wikipedians_with_science_and_art_degrees.
I think we agree, in principle, that notifying category creators is desirable.
Quite understandably, notifying every category creator for every listing is a burden on nominators. It is in part a burden because it is disheartening when often the category creator is gone or not interested. CfD and other category maintenance work is already a heavy load for a few volunteers, and anything that makes it easier should be a good thing. I therefore think that automatic notification is preferable in place of an expectation that nominators perform the task.
I recall that other CfD notification proposals/practices have been more trouble than they are worth because the recipients objected to being spammed. I think that that problem would be an issue if notifying all of the membership, or all of the category editors, but the category creator is a particularly special person who you would expect to have either an interest participating in the CfD debate, or who could learn something about category creation expectations just by following the debate. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Optional process, not mandatory, and I would be fine with it too.
Not everyone uses the various formatting templates/tools to list at CfD (and they are not required), so the creator may not be necessarily notified.
Also, just being the creator of a category doesn't mean much. If you hang around, helping out at CfD long enough, you'll find you've created more than a few : ) jc37 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Cross posting here, from Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories.
Of all the pages that discuss User Categories, it seems that Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories is the most useful.
Other pages include:
I think some tidying is in order. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a minor issue with deleted categories. I don't believe that any of the bots deal with articles (or categories) where a category is included in the text using a pipe to display another name. This is a difficult problem to spot afterward. Should checking the 'what links here' be added to the steps when deleting a category? Is there a way to automate this? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There are currently 11 projects that have quality assessment categories that start with WikiProject rather than just the subject. I have placed a suggestion on the talk page of each project soliciting comments from the projects about renaming these categories to match the other 1660 projects, so far with positive comments and go ahead. One user suggested submitting something here but before I add a CFD/renaming tag on 60+ categories I wanted to ask what the best procedure for doing this is? Should I add it to every individual quality category or just the parent WikiProject X articles by quality category? -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw a bunch of these go by my watchlist. These are all going to be controversial. Please don't put China/PRC renames on Speedy Rename and undo those that have been done recently. Many of these have redone the work of a malicious sockpuppet after previous lengthy, but old, discussions at CfD. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Given the size of the current list, one wonders if these get enough editors reviewing them. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Under "Preliminary steps" the instructions say to "Read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)". Then, right before "Edit the category" they again point people to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Granted, this is important advice, but I don't think it should be repeated there. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a CfD for Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Canada and added to it, realizing I'd missed it, Category:Power stations in Canada. I'm in crappy, unstable motel WIFI and it's incredibly laborious at times, especially facing dozens of categories. So between net speed frustrations and general impatience/low back pain from sitting so much, I'm hoping someone may consent to help get the rest of the tagging done - all relevant subcats of Category:Power stations in Canada (not all are affected, as you'll see).....target name I'd proposed was "powerhouses" but I've recanted that to a more formal "generating station"; I suppose the tagging should conform to the existing proposed "powerhouses" name, but maybe it doesn't have to. I jsut can't do it all by myself, due to time/net/health constraints. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I know this cat's been around since 2007, but I just don't see the point of it. It's true that Richmond is ALL islands, and perhaps unusual in that regard, when you stop to think about it, at least in Canada.....but there's already Category:Islands of the Fraser River and there is no equivalent parallel to be had for classifying islands by municipality. It also sets a bad precedent, as (despite my opposition to using RD categories for landforms etc) someone is going to come along and create, e.g. Category:Islands of the Regional District of Nanaimo (those are already all in Category:Gulf Islands) RDs are technically municipalities, by law, but we don't think of them that way at all....the essential point is this is a lone-wolf category....and I really can't think of another "X landform of Y municipality" category - not any one that should survive anyway (there may be Category:Waterbodies of Burnaby or some such; but it's a different matter when the entire municipality is islands; it's not the same with scattered lakes through a mainland municipality; the Richmond category itself is an islands category. I think it's 19 or 28 major islands, including one (Annacis) which is shared with Delta) and another (Lulu) which is partly in New Wesminster.....and it may be that the in/of naming issue/guideline is in a special case here, because Richmond is made out of these islands - they are Richmond..... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure this is how "categories for discussion" is supposed to work. Feel free to move my comments to a more appropriate place for discussion - just let me know. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have closed the November 28 discussion on stub categories and the November 30 discussion on political party categories as keep. However, there are 136 categories that need to have their cfd tags removed, and that's beyond me. Is there someone who has a bot who can do this? The categories are also all listed at Category:Categories_for_discussion_from_November_2010; all of the categories in there are from these two nominations, as I've cleared out all the others from November. Anyone willing to help with this? And would it be possible to set up a place on /Working (or a subpage) for a bot to go through large nominations like this and just remove the tags and place the linkback on the talk page?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:05, 25 December 2010 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Apparently an editor is changing some of the BC categories to BCE. I found this in Confucius. The issue is that if this action renaming to a red linked category. his is a problem when other editors nominate the emptied categories for deletion. I need to do some digging to find out which editor is doing this which I consider to be WP:POV. But if anyone has a bot to look for the red linked BCE categories and rename them, that would probably be a good thing. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, the unofficial "CFD-is-broken tracker" has spit out its final numbers for all of 2009: here. [1]
Summary: There were 5536 CFDs and 37 DRVs (0.69%). The DRV results indicted that about two-thirds of the 37 appealed CFDs were "unproblematic" in the way they were closed, while the other third were closed in a way that was somehow "problematic". 0.22% of all CFDs were "problematic". 0.11% of DRVs were "clearly wrong" (overturned at DRV).
Congratulations, CFD closers. You did the unproblematic thing 99.78% of the time; and you avoided doing the clearly wrong thing 99.89% of the time.
Of course, the closers couldn't have done so well without the collaborative work of everyone who worked to build consensus in the thousands of CFDs, day after day. Nice job. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Good Olfactory.
Same point as before, but dividing the numbers by a large number of CfDs that were not deletion discussions is perhaps unfair to a true analysis. I'd prefer to see raw numbers. Looking at User:Good_Olfactory#Unofficial_.22CFD-is-broken.22_tracker, I find column 12 '% "problematic" of DRV total' the most meaningful. Does it mean that problem CfD closures are specific to northern-non-winter time? That said ...
Speaking from the top of my head, on gut feel from DRV, the problematic closures that seemed to be be over-represented from CfD, no longer seem noticeable. So, as per Good Olfactory (do you have a name, as opposed to a characteristic), congratulations to the closers, and thanks to all participants.
Note that I moved myself from Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken to Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants.
For anyone who disapproves of my style of capitallisations in abbreviations, feel free to point me to a guideline (or even better, an article!), and I will be pleased to be educated.
Happy New Year. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. If this data is to have any meaning, the routine renames and the one-sided deletions need to be segregated out. The fact that it is theoretically possible to challenge a rename hardly justifies stacking the deck. Anyone notice that 97.78% of discussions at CfD are rather routine renames, ones that should be speedyable? A significant percentage of the remainder are rather routine deletions, where the overwhelming majority of participants vote to delete. Somewhere about 1-2% are "discussions" where some participants vote to keep and others vote to delete. These are the ones where admins have been making some rather strikingly bad calls. As DRV will only overturn if the rotten egg smell levels wafting from the bad call are even higher than usual, the fact that half (.11% out of the .22% that went to DRV) of these stinkingly bad calls were overturned is further evidence that we have very little to be proud of here at CfD. We have made progress this year. Some of the most problematic admins have moved on and/or left close calls to more unbiased admins, bringing the problem levels down as the year progressed. But the problems are far from gone. Alansohn ( talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the recommended procedure to take with the categories listed in the "Categories possibly emptied out of process" section? Repopulate them if possible and delete it if you can't (as when the articles were deleted)? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As of the writing, there are 71 open CfDs that are waiting to be closed, 37 of which are more than two weeks old. By contrast WP:AFD, which averages more than 100 deletion discussions per day, has eight open discussions, all of which are for January 10, the day that just rolled off of the week-long cycle. The simplest solution is to close all of these discussions as no consensus and move on. Far too often, these discussions are relisted days or weeks after the seven-day limit and are then closed arbitrarily once the vote needed to just tip the scales barely in one direction is cast, whereupon its closed.
We need to craft some policy so that there is some clarity and transparency in how these stale cases are closed. I suggest that CfDs that do not have a consensus after a week be relisted immediately and kept open for a second week; Those CfDs that remain uncloseable as either keep or delete after a second week should be closed as no consensus after the completion of a second full week. Given how few discussions there are at CfD, especially compared to the far more substantial case load at AfD, there is no justification for so many open discussions staying open so long after the one-week period, nor is there any rationale for when and why CfDs are closed under the present arbitrary process. Alansohn ( talk) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Now we're up to 81 open CfDs that are stale and waiting to be closed, 37 of which are more than two weeks old. AfD has ten times more discussions per day with ten times as many participants in the average discussion, yet only one-tenth as many deletion debates open after the one-week deadline. Does AfD have 100 times more admins working closes or are the admins at CfD just unwilling to either make "difficult" closes or simply close as no consensus. Alansohn ( talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been proposed before, but at least I couldn't find it in the archives. I propose adding a new speedy criterion:
8. Renaming a category to match the name of a corresponding article, except if the speedy renaming has been contested in the past or if renaming the category has already been discussed at a full CfD.
In my experience a lot of these renames are uncontroversial and only need to go through CfD because we have no other mechanism to rename categories. Remember that standard article naming conventions do apply to category names, so in most cases there's no need to have the same discussion twice (first on the article's talk page, and then at CfD for the corresponding article).
Examples of this kind of discussions are listed below. As you can see, there are a lot of these, and the overwhelming majority are uncontested. That's why I think a speedy criterion would make it more straightforward for people working on these articles to get categories renamed, and it could also improve the quality of CfD discussions since a smaller proportion of the proposals would be uncontroversial renames. Any thoughts? Jafeluv ( talk) 13:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Examples of successful nominations from December 2009
|
---|
|
Perhaps somebody would be willing to compile a survey of say one month, how many of this type of rename have been accepted and how many rejected. There seems to be more agreement with this proposal than disagreement, but some hard figures may be more indicative of how desirable this is. Debresser ( talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added some data above about rejected nominations. While I was at it, I added some successful nominations that I had missed earlier. Here are the numbers:
Note that I've counted "Someone argued for deletion, but did not contest renaming" as a contested nomination, since that sort of thing would likely go to through a full CfD anyway. Jafeluv ( talk) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Encompassing, I think, the above suggestion, I think that speedy renames should be doable with the agreement of the category creator. This should cover most non-controversial renames. A speedy rename should be easier to obtain than WP:CSD#G7. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A large reorganization of Category:Primates has been proposed and discussed on WT:PRIMATE. The final scheme (second one posted under WT:PRIMATE#Scheme, or shown more clearly below) will involve the following:
All other changes involve simple category creations and the re-categorization of numerous primate articles, which I'm willing to do manually once I get the green light here.
The new scheme will look like this:
Please either leave comments and/or let me know how to proceed. And a quick note: the term "non-human primate" is a technical term that is very useful in this case... otherwise "Fictional primates" and "Famous primates" would include humans as well. So, please, no taking jabs at the convoluted name unless you genuinely want to include Category:Fictional characters and the deleted Category:Famous people. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see WT:Deletion today. Simply south ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion review for a recent CFD: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 6#Category:Scandals with -gate suffix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it okay to speedily process a proposal that meets the speedy rename/merge criteria, but was proposed at a full CfD instead? That is, if after two days there are no objections, can the nomination just be closed as speedy rename/merge? I'm asking because it seems Altenmann moved some categories from a full CfD to a parallel speedy nomination, in order "not to waste people's time". Can't we just document it at WP:CFDS that a CfD meeting the speedy criteria that has no objections can be speedily processed just like if it was nominated for speedy in the first place? It would be a simpler solution for everyone. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this is clear evidence of having far too much time on my hands, but here goes...
Looking through the speedy criteria as presently constituted, they seem to fall into three broad classes: enforcement of category tree conventions, enforcement of general wikipedia naming conventions, and typographical fixes.
My outline view is that all the 7 criteria we presently have could be brought under these three headings as follows:
The criteria within each of these groups are closely related (eg spelling mistakes (No.1), capitalisation fixes (No.2), and conversion between dashes and hyphens (No.7) - each of these three are separate forms of what could be more generally described as 'typographical fixes'); why not join them together? The criteria and their order is the result of ad-hoc revision and alteration over the past few years. If something has looked good and been agreed to, it has been added to the bottom of the list. Therefore, a few years down the line, we find that there is no real structure to it. So, all that said, what is the general view on revising the criteria to develop some sort of logical framework?
A quick-and-dirty attempt at merger follows. I would suggest something along these lines as a new WP:CSD#C2:
A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
B. A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
C. A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
Xdamr talk 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic stuff, it looks like we're all generally content. I'll swap over the current seven criteria with the three above.
A point on naming. All the speedy rename criteria are currently expressed as sub-clauses of WP:CSD#C2. That being the case I've gone with letters A to C instead of numbers. C2A looks a bit better that C2(1) (as a form of shorthand reference) and it does present a clear break with the Nos. 1 to 7 system. Hopefully this will avoid any confusion between the new and the 'legacy' criteria. These three new ones are reachable via the usual CSD-style shortcuts - eg WP:CSD#C2A. All that said, if anyone has another opinion, or wants to go wild and name then X, Y, and Z, I'm sure it can be discussed.
More generally, the new merged criteria could probably benefit from a little polishing and rewording here and there, but that can be tomorrow's problem...
Xdamr talk 21:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like I've run into a little problem. When closing this discussion, I failed to notice that Category:Football (soccer) stubs was in the mix. As we all should know, stub categories are supposed to be nominated over at WP:SFD. So anyways, I went over to add the Association football and several other categories for processing in WP:CFDW, only to realize much later of the aforementioned stub category. I spotted it before the bot was able to get to it and, in order to avoid any mistakes, removed it. So basically, what is the procedure to be done now? Should the stub category be relisted at SFD or can it run its course here at CfDW? — ξ xplicit 09:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Category:Christian university organizations was emptied without first going to CFD. Now I'm happy to get the editor who emptied the categories to list this here, but I'm curious how you put back all the articles into the category should the deletion decision be to keep the category. Is this possible at all? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've virtually never participated in the CFD process before and came here because I noticed what appeared to be a silly category name ( Category:Sailboat names) that, one way or another, should not be used, and I wanted to do something about that. I think I did succeed in nominating the category for merging, but it seems to me there's some significant room for improvement in the instructions for nominating a CFD, and that the directions are longer and more confusing than they need to be. If I were a less-experienced editor, I think it's quite possible I would just have given up, or tried to complete the nomination without understanding whether I was actually doing it right.
Here are the things I wanted to point out:
Sorry this got so long and wordy. Some of these, I think I could take a shot at improving myself, but I'm quite hesitant to jump in because, as I said, I have next-to-zero familiarity with the CFD process. I'm trying to help by providing an outsiders' perspective here. I'm hoping someone who does understand what users should do will take an interest in improving the way instructions are imparted. Propaniac ( talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that discussions about any specific category should not start at CFD.
Editors normally start discussions of issues at the most relevant talk page for the specific concern before taking to a larger platform. Consider WP:BEFORE for articles. The principle of trying to resolve any real or percieved problems at the lowest level should also apply to categories. Maurreen ( talk) 16:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the old UCFD templates have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 22
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, an article move has been requested for Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (US), that you may be interested in, because of all the possible category renames that would ripple out from such a decision. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like business is not so speedy after all down at 'Speedy'. Hello -o -o- o? Cavila ( talk) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Where should I go to get input on naming a set of maintenance categories? Is CfD the correct place? I chose the poor name Category:Copied uses without oldid for certain instances of {{ Copied}}, and I want advice on improving it before creating related categories. Flatscan ( talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to rename the above category to something like Category:English football, defender, 1880s birth stubs in order to not try and infer nationality when it may not be known, having already changed the explanatory text at the associated template ( Template:England-footy-defender-1880s-stub). Some discussion on this has been posted at [2]. I'd like to try and get some agreement/understanding of whether the above change is likely to be acceptable, and would then look to change many more similar stub categories accessed from [3], and ultimately the same for other countries as well. I'd welcome any comments - am I best adding the above change to the CfD proposals page, should I refer to the other proposed changes at the same time? Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is Category:Images of curves and Gallery of curves. I don't think we need both of these. Suggestions for how to handle this? Thanks, Btyner ( talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Merge gallery of curves to list of curves, which currently doesn't have any images. postdlf ( talk) 12:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wondering if we want to have the tree Category:People by secondary school? We also have Category:People by high school in Taiwan and Category:People by secondary school in Canada. Mayumashu ( talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have categories for birth and death years? Maurreen ( talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a suggestion this should be merged with Category:Luxembourgian architecture. Well, my first reaction is, I woúld never have thought there might be a category Luxembourgian architecture when I was trying to find a suitable one for my article(s). The natural term is of course Luxembourg architecture - and that's why I added it. If you do a Google search for "Luxembourg architecture" (in quotes) you get 5,400 hits. If you search for "Luxembourgian architecture" you get 115 with the WP category at the top! Luxembourgian is not an adjective used here in Luxembourg. In fact it sounds very pretentious. So let's call a spade a spade and have Luxembourg architecture, just as everyone else calls it. Then you can merge the few existing instances of Luxembourgian architecture into Luxembourg architecture. -- Ipigott ( talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This comment refers to my nomination to speedily merge the newly-created Category:Luxembourg architecture with Category:Luxembourgian architecture, which has existed since June 2008. See WP:CFDS where the nomination is listed. I'm kind of agnostic at this point on the issue of which adjective would be preferable, but if there is a desire to change it, a rename should formally be proposed. Creating a differently named new category to compete with the already existing one that uses the standard adjective used throughout WP isn't the way to go about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Does somebody know the procedure to get Category:Marc Claproth either moved to User:Marc94clap or a subpage there or to article space or deleted. Looks like he created an article about himself in category space. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 06:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually looks like he has it both in user space and category space--if this isn't a speedy deletion in category namespace, it should be, but I can't figure out a classification for it. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 07:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember the details, but someone suggested developing a guideline about cats (for people by occupation?) for the 20th and 21st centuries. The same idea might be extended for other centuries.
I'm thinking a guideline might be developed based on expected size -- not too big but not too small. For instance, the high number of modern actors would make them ineligible for cats for the 20th and 21st centuries, but possibly eligible for earlier centuries. In a probably hypthetical example, a moderate number of notable glassblowers throughout history might make them eligible for several century cats. Maurreen ( talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions currently reads:
When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. Scripts such as User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD automate the process.
While this makes sense for a process like AfD, where each article has its own deletion discussion page, I do not think that it works for CfD, which operates on the basis of deletion discussion sections within daily log pages. When a CfD nomination is initiated, incoming links to that day's log page are created by the CfD tagging templates (i.e., {{ cfd}}, {{ cfr}}, {{ cfm}}, and {{ cfc}}) and any notifications (e.g., using {{ cfd-notify}}). When a CfD nomination is relisted, it is helpful to take steps to ensure that those incoming links will continue to be useful.
So, I suggest the following two-step process for relisting CfD discussions:
==== Category:Example ==== :{{relisted}} [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Example]]. ~~~~
If there is support for this idea, I propose adding a short paragraph or subsection (perhaps in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes) with the following text (or something similar):
Discussions at CfD should, when necessary, be relisted in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions, with one qualification: when removing a discussion from the log for its original date, the section heading of the discussion should be preserved and a link to the location of the relisted discussion added. For example:
==== Category:Example ==== :{{relisted}} [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Example]]. ~~~~
Comments? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, the guidance at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria said to tag a category with {{ db-c2}} ... even though the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here said to use {{ subst:Cfr-speedy|new name}}.
I only spotted this yesterday, when some categories listed for speedy renaming had been deleted. I then noticed that {{ db-c2}} causes a category to be placed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where some editors unsurprisingly just deleted it. This had even happened to categories which had already been renamed, because Cydebot does not remove the {{ db-c2}} tag.
I have changed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria so that it now recommends {{ subst:Cfr-speedy|new name}} ... but do we actually need {{ db-c2}}? I think that it should be redirected to {{ Cfr-speedy}}, because the current db-c2 gives no warning of the need to list categories for 48 hours before the renaming is done. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go ahead and put {{ db-c2}} up for deletion.
We have just had a huge batch of college football categories listed at CfD 2010 April 2, but tagged with {{ db-c2}} and speedily renamed by cydebot (see e.g. Category:1911 NCAA College football season. None of the speedy criteria was cite or met, and while I hope that the nominator was merely unaware of how things should be done, this episode demonstrates that {{ db-c2}} is incompatible with existing processes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
see discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station
I will need to tag these categories for renaming and all subcategories :
The format is "Category:Disused xxxxxxxx" to be renamed "Category:Defunct xxxxxxxx"
Is there are machine or bot that can help with this? also when I list them in "categories for discussion" do I need to list all the sub-categories, or can I just list the top 4 categories (there are no exception categories within)? Thanks. Shortfatlad ( talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Minor disagreement over format of {{ Cfr-speedy}}.
Comments sought at Template talk:Cfr-speedy#Format_of_text_to_be_pasted_into_WP:CFD.2FS. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:12, 11 April 2010
I have filed a request for a bot (see here) to tag large numbers of categories nominated as part of group nominations. Comments and suggestions are welcome. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Cydebot is screwing things up. It made this edit (Speedily moving category German-American sportspeople to American sportspeople of German descent per CFD). Which is incorrect. Those or two ENTIRELY different categories. German-American sportspeople is for sports players who play in Germany and America. American Sportspeople of German Descent is a completely different catagory. Please help make sure the bot didn't add incorrect catagories to any more pages. RF23 ( talk) 19:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
One of these discussion completely lost focus, and when on to talk about a million things at once, could someone close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7#Category:Wikipedia:Other Books and all other discussions related to Wikipedia books as "no consensus/procedural close" or whatever's appropriate, so I can resubmit them as more focused requests which reflects the recent updates in software? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please close the Wikipedia books nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7 (3 noms) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books (6 noms grouped into one section). The April 7 nominations can be closed procedurally as having been superseded by the April 27 nominations, but their content can provide context for the April 27 nominations. I just now added a full, formatted list of categories nominated in the two group nominations to rename or delete user books by topic and community books by topic. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ cfc}} and {{ cfl}} have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Cydebot speedily moved Category:Texas rock music groups to Category:Rock music groups from Texas on May 31st. [4] I'm wondering whether any of the moved articles might have been categorized under "Texas rock..." as a genre of music, as opposed to "Texas... music groups" as a geographical designation. In particular, the two articles Bloodline (band) and Five Americans don't seem to explicitly state that they were formed in Texas. Could someone look into this? - dcljr ( talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of suggesting that a category be renamed, but before I do, I want to make sure I'm not volunteering for a bunch of tedious manual editing :-) So: if the rename proposal is adopted, is there a tool that will change all the category tags in all the articles within the category to reflect the new name? (BTW: if that is an automated process, that fact should probably be mentioned in the Project Page to help future users understand the process better. The "Procedure" section has steps 1,2,3 to get the rename/delete started, but users may want to know what happens after that. Maybe add a Step 4? ). -- Noleander ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best place to raise this, but I'm requesting help cleaning up a category. Category:Christian terms has over 1000 pages. An anonymous editor, over the years, has been adding tons and tons of junk to this category. As it stands, I believe the scope of the category is way too broad, and was wondering if anyone wanted to help take on the daunting task of cleaning it up, and/or setting some clear boundaries/guidelines for inclusion. I'd be glad to post this elsewhere if anyone has suggestions. - Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Where did common sense go in this debate ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 24#Category:Conductors)? There are thousands of articles on conductors related to music and the word is most commonly used in everyday conversation in a musical context. Why then, when there are only a very small number of articles on train conductors (less than 50), was the category disambiguated for music and not for the train conductors. It seems much more obvious to not dissambiguate the most common usage of the cat but to use an alternative naming for "train conductors" (probabably "category:train conductors" would work great). I would strongly suggest re-thinking this decision. I hope I am raising my complaint in the right place. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, when starting the Cfx-steps, I was enthousiastic. I know something in wikipedia. A great line up and steps provided here, compared to my last CfD a year ago or so. But In the end I made a mess like this. Quite intimidating stuff (intermediate problems skipped). In general: It takes 44 lines in the process here, and then another unknown actions along the way. Just after I reached my 5000-edit remark, Wikipedia makes me feel stupid. - DePiep ( talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
{{CFD nomination | action = <!-- "delete", "listify", "merge" or "rename" --> | category = <!-- Using the format "Category:PAGENAME" --> | target = <!-- if applicable, the name of the target page to which the category is to be listified, merged or renamed --> | reason = <!-- the rationale for the change --> | sig = ~~~~ }}
Look at Category:Canton of Zürich - you'll see some subcategories with "canton", others with "Canton"; some with "Zürich", others with "Zurich". (There is even a duplicated category.) The issue with canton vs. Canton applies to other cantons as well. Can someone sort this out without the need to spend time tagging and listing all these categories? (I presume it should be "Zürich" with the umlaut, since that's what the article's called; and "canton" with the lower-case "c" seems more popular - I'll ask someone from the Swiss project to confirm.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, why is it that when a category is renamed, the old name is completely deleted, rather than being left as a {{ category redirect}}? Secondly, when categories are renamed, is it not possible to actually move the existing category page, rather than creating a new category with identical content? That way, the new name will be added to the watchlists of those editors who have the old name watchlisted. - htonl ( talk) 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like speedy requests are getting to be very large these days. Based on this, I think we should specifically ban collapsed requests. These serve no purpose other then to make observing what is being listed harder to see. Since these get very little review, they all should be listed in plain sight. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In lieu of starting what would undoubtedly be a complex CfD (or at the very least, not doing so unless others think I should) can someone give me a bit of guidance on how to categorise Lee Hodson?
On account of playing for the national team, he clearly has a connection to Northern Ireland. But he was born, and has always lived, in England, so Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland does not seem appropriate. He is categorised with Category:Northern Ireland under-21 international footballers, and on account of that I removed Category:English footballers (the rationale being that he has explicitly identified himself as Northern Irish by playing for that team).
My gut reaction is to nominate Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland to be renamed as Category:Northern Ireland association footballers. But while I'm normally bold, I'm aware that I may be going over old ground. Thanks in advance, WFC ( talk) 23:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to renominate all the subcategories of Category:Species by year of formal description of the type "described in" to "named in" (this is more precise and avoids issues with species that were described before they got their names). As requested on the main CFD page, I'm asking for help with tagging here. Ucucha 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Which looks like it hasn’t been updated in a while, including to comply with this year’s changes to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates. Clarifications also needed. While most is cleanup, there are specific proposals to clarify cases where categories are using “Disclaimers” to try to get around the fact that inclusion of the category implies the person has a poor reputation. (For example see Category:Antisemitism and Category:Homophobia.) For hard core categorization junkies :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Ie., Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda recruiters, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators
WP:BLP says For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Since these people assumedly are considered criminals, and they have not been convicted, they shouldn't be in such a category. If they've admitted to it they belong in some other category. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
.... can get some help from other editors regarding the discussion at Category talk:American beauty pageant winners ??? Some guidance from an experienced categories editor is much needed but it doesn't really fall into any category here and I don't know where to take it to. Thanks PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't figure out where to post the CfD or how to characterize it. Help? The problem category is Category:Pigs, which has as its nominal scope the pig family Suidae but also contains a lot of stuff such as articles about pig husbandry, pig breeds, and notable individual pigs. For some reason Category:Suidae is unused and soft redirects to Category:Pigs. How to fix this mess? 69.3.72.249 ( talk) 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In this discussion I just closed, this argument was ventured: "on the grounds that it is too soon to bring this up for discussion again." User:Good Olfactory replied, "If there is no consensus one way or the other at the end of a discussion how can it ever be 'too soon' to raise the issue again?" It might be worth discussing whether different closes lead to different lengths of time that a close should be honored. I'm not sure I want hard and fast rules, but I wonder if folks could be comfortable with 6 months on a "keep" or "delete," and 2 months on a "no consensus"? Or maybe "no consensus" means it can be brought up again immediately? I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't this section transclude Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto? __ meco ( talk) 08:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A new editor, User:RPekař, is rapidly creating categories for every opera composer, even if the person has only composed one opera. The guidelines say not to create categories for things that have only a few members and that are not likely to grow. I left him a message, but what should be done about this WP:OVERCATegorization? All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The instructions for nominating categories through the CfD process are quite long, and editors routinely post comments which suggest that the CfD process is in need of simplification (e.g. ' Category names with hyphens misused after "ly"' and ' Great when I started, ugly at the finish'). Much of the instructions concern the use of the various CfD tagging and nomination templates.
I created {{ Cfd nomination}} as a possible replacement for {{ Cfd2}}, {{ Cfr2}}, {{ Cfm2}} and {{ Cfc2}}. The new template has all of the functionality of the other four, but requires only one set of instructions, and so I propose that the four old templates be gradually deprecated: update the instructions, tag the templates as deprecated, and eventually (perhaps after a few months) delete them. Any thoughts? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not just use cfd2? this page was renamed categories for discussion awhile back. If anything we might just want to adjust the language in template:cfd to make clear that it's not just for deletion outcomes. - jc37 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I found the instructions somewhat difficult to understand, so I am listing here the categories which I am mentioning for renaming, together with the target names. WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, point 4, says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb". I mentioned these categories earlier, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Category names with hyphens misused after "ly" (permanent link here). The last one on this list here has an additional error in the fact that "clean up" ( verb phrase) should be "cleanup" ( noun adjunct). I started redirecting them, but encountered difficulties, and that is why some of the target pages are shown with blue links.
Incidentally, I noticed in the interlanguage links the same error in the Simple English Wikipedia.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I recently found that a category had been speedily moved. But there was a link to this category, and it wasn't updated to point to the new category. Shouldn't that be a requirement of the bot or human doing the move? Powers T 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can these be listed in the speedy queue to have the bot empty the red categories? I guess this may also be a two part answer question if the basic answer is no. What about for categories that have already been deleted? Can these be listed at speedy deletion? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we agree that it is desirable for there to be automatic (bot) notification of the category creator when the category is listed at CfD. If we do agree, then we can ask someone capable to make it so.
This follows-up a brief conversation at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_14#Category:Wikipedians_with_science_and_art_degrees.
I think we agree, in principle, that notifying category creators is desirable.
Quite understandably, notifying every category creator for every listing is a burden on nominators. It is in part a burden because it is disheartening when often the category creator is gone or not interested. CfD and other category maintenance work is already a heavy load for a few volunteers, and anything that makes it easier should be a good thing. I therefore think that automatic notification is preferable in place of an expectation that nominators perform the task.
I recall that other CfD notification proposals/practices have been more trouble than they are worth because the recipients objected to being spammed. I think that that problem would be an issue if notifying all of the membership, or all of the category editors, but the category creator is a particularly special person who you would expect to have either an interest participating in the CfD debate, or who could learn something about category creation expectations just by following the debate. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Optional process, not mandatory, and I would be fine with it too.
Not everyone uses the various formatting templates/tools to list at CfD (and they are not required), so the creator may not be necessarily notified.
Also, just being the creator of a category doesn't mean much. If you hang around, helping out at CfD long enough, you'll find you've created more than a few : ) jc37 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Cross posting here, from Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories.
Of all the pages that discuss User Categories, it seems that Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories is the most useful.
Other pages include:
I think some tidying is in order. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a minor issue with deleted categories. I don't believe that any of the bots deal with articles (or categories) where a category is included in the text using a pipe to display another name. This is a difficult problem to spot afterward. Should checking the 'what links here' be added to the steps when deleting a category? Is there a way to automate this? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There are currently 11 projects that have quality assessment categories that start with WikiProject rather than just the subject. I have placed a suggestion on the talk page of each project soliciting comments from the projects about renaming these categories to match the other 1660 projects, so far with positive comments and go ahead. One user suggested submitting something here but before I add a CFD/renaming tag on 60+ categories I wanted to ask what the best procedure for doing this is? Should I add it to every individual quality category or just the parent WikiProject X articles by quality category? -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw a bunch of these go by my watchlist. These are all going to be controversial. Please don't put China/PRC renames on Speedy Rename and undo those that have been done recently. Many of these have redone the work of a malicious sockpuppet after previous lengthy, but old, discussions at CfD. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Given the size of the current list, one wonders if these get enough editors reviewing them. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Under "Preliminary steps" the instructions say to "Read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)". Then, right before "Edit the category" they again point people to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Granted, this is important advice, but I don't think it should be repeated there. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a CfD for Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Canada and added to it, realizing I'd missed it, Category:Power stations in Canada. I'm in crappy, unstable motel WIFI and it's incredibly laborious at times, especially facing dozens of categories. So between net speed frustrations and general impatience/low back pain from sitting so much, I'm hoping someone may consent to help get the rest of the tagging done - all relevant subcats of Category:Power stations in Canada (not all are affected, as you'll see).....target name I'd proposed was "powerhouses" but I've recanted that to a more formal "generating station"; I suppose the tagging should conform to the existing proposed "powerhouses" name, but maybe it doesn't have to. I jsut can't do it all by myself, due to time/net/health constraints. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I know this cat's been around since 2007, but I just don't see the point of it. It's true that Richmond is ALL islands, and perhaps unusual in that regard, when you stop to think about it, at least in Canada.....but there's already Category:Islands of the Fraser River and there is no equivalent parallel to be had for classifying islands by municipality. It also sets a bad precedent, as (despite my opposition to using RD categories for landforms etc) someone is going to come along and create, e.g. Category:Islands of the Regional District of Nanaimo (those are already all in Category:Gulf Islands) RDs are technically municipalities, by law, but we don't think of them that way at all....the essential point is this is a lone-wolf category....and I really can't think of another "X landform of Y municipality" category - not any one that should survive anyway (there may be Category:Waterbodies of Burnaby or some such; but it's a different matter when the entire municipality is islands; it's not the same with scattered lakes through a mainland municipality; the Richmond category itself is an islands category. I think it's 19 or 28 major islands, including one (Annacis) which is shared with Delta) and another (Lulu) which is partly in New Wesminster.....and it may be that the in/of naming issue/guideline is in a special case here, because Richmond is made out of these islands - they are Richmond..... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure this is how "categories for discussion" is supposed to work. Feel free to move my comments to a more appropriate place for discussion - just let me know. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have closed the November 28 discussion on stub categories and the November 30 discussion on political party categories as keep. However, there are 136 categories that need to have their cfd tags removed, and that's beyond me. Is there someone who has a bot who can do this? The categories are also all listed at Category:Categories_for_discussion_from_November_2010; all of the categories in there are from these two nominations, as I've cleared out all the others from November. Anyone willing to help with this? And would it be possible to set up a place on /Working (or a subpage) for a bot to go through large nominations like this and just remove the tags and place the linkback on the talk page?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)