Categories | ||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
On 6 May 2006, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The result of the discussion was page moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. |
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 1 | 59 | 0 | 60 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 79 | 0 | 79 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of {{ CfD top}} from bff9fc to caf0f2 (or at least something similar). SWinxy asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.
bff9fc is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:
Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:
Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not against the idea, per se, but if we're going to change it, I would prefer that we change it to a named web colour and not to a numeric code. - jc37 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an example of text (Azure) |
This is an example of text (LightCyan) |
This is an example of text (PaleTurquoise) |
This is an example of text (PowderBlue) |
This is an example of text (LightBlue) |
This is an example of text (SkyBlue) |
This is an example of text (Lavender) |
I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc37 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to LightCyan ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:
Courtesy pings to some CfD regulars as well as participants in the above discussion: @ AHI-3000, Cremastra, Fayenatic london, Jc37, LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, SilverLocust, Smasongarrison, SWinxy, ToadetteEdit, Ymblanter, and Zxcvbnm. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
If a category was previously considered and deleted, can it be reconsidered and undeleted? MR.RockGamer17 ( talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m in mobile right now and can’t list this category: Category:XMAG (magazine), which is pointless and has article content in it, and only one page. BhamBoi ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The bot just performed the merger of Category:Missing people found deceased to Category:Formerly missing people, following a CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart, which also saw input from Suncheon Boy, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison and Fayenatic london. However, the category should have been deleted, not merged, as consensus at the previous discussion was to delete the category as non-defining. Merging resulted in the pollution of the target category, which I understand was supposed to be about people who went missing but were later found alive. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, there's clearly a big difference between people who went missing then turned up alive and those who were found dead. They were presumably separately categorised at the time of the 2020 CfD, but following the deletion of Category:Formerly missing people found dead, editors then lumped them together in Category:Formerly missing people. This seems to go against the intent of that CfD and is quite clearly undesirable if you ask me; I can see why Minerva97 (whom I forgot to ping earlier) re-created and populated it as Category:Missing people found deceased, even if she was unaware of the previous discussion.
Anyway, however we got here, the more relevant question is how to move forward. We could start a new CfD to either (A) re-split Category:Formerly missing people into missing-then-alive and missing-then-dead people (overturning the previous CfD result), or (B) rename it to more clearly reflect what I assume is the original intended scope and purge the missing-then-dead to enforce the previous CfD outcome. However, maybe this discussion alone is enough indication that the situation and consensus has changed in the intervening three years, so "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", negating G4. In that case (C) the bot actions can simply be reverted, restoring Minerva97's split. That would avoid the need to manually purge or re-split the category again, which would be needed should we go the new CfD route. Or we could also (D) do nothing.
Pinging the still-active previous CfD participants Namiba, RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, and DexDor, and closer MER-C. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This whole conversation is frustratingly collegial; doesn't anyone feel adamant? - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This CSD request is incorrect and should never have been approved; the main article is at VfL Bochum and so all categories should be at Category:VfL Bochum XXX.
Please can the moves be reverted and the old categories restored on articles? Giant Snowman 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac ( talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Following the British, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cats, which have now all been moved from Queen's Counsel to King's Counsel, shouldn't the same be done for this category?
Thanks, -- NSH001 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The category Category:2023 in horse racing is included into Category:2023 in equestrian which has been deleted and moved to Category:2023 in equestrian sports. (The same problem is for every year). I tried to find which template which sets the category but I can not see where it is. Could someone help me please? It probably requires just one edit for every year in some template. Thanks. Ymblanter ( talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories.
What do you think about upmerging all team categories in
Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.
Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.
Pinging @ Marcocapelle, @ Ymblanter, @ Smasongarrison, @ HouseBlaster, @ Qwerfjkl. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Chemical Biology has been tagged for CfD, but has no corresponding discussion ( "this category's entry"). This seems to be a straight-forward duplicate of Category:Chemical biology, but I'm not familiar with CfD or categories in general. Should this be renominated or can this be merged/redirected with no discussion as uncontroversial? ― Syn path 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
category redirect|Category:Chemical biology}}
. —
andrybak (
talk)
23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The top half of the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.
The opposite approach is used on WP:RFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:BN, all of which have subpages for their "static", almost "unchanging" parts. E.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. In case of RFD, it can be very useful to see the history of the changes to the instructions/procedure separately from changes to the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Aside from taking every text snippet to wikiblame, are there any other ways of looking at how instructions and procedure of WP:CFD/S changed over time? — andrybak ( talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely... Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :) DonIago ( talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps ( talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
There really needs to be better integration between closing RMs and notifying this page (or a new central cleanup page) of the close. I stumbled across Talk:Alborz province#Requested move 24 January 2022, which seems that had no follow up work done to articles, sub-articles and categories. Gonnym ( talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).
The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.
In theory,
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion.
Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).
Moreover, I didn't know that all editors could challenge a closure and request a reopening at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and that this was regular practice.
... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as
an appropriate discussion page.
(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)
So:
Good day, NLeeuw ( talk) 16:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. Joke NLeeuw ( talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter ( talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories). House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 03:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories | ||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
On 6 May 2006, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The result of the discussion was page moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. |
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 1 | 59 | 0 | 60 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 79 | 0 | 79 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of {{ CfD top}} from bff9fc to caf0f2 (or at least something similar). SWinxy asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.
bff9fc is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:
Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:
Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not against the idea, per se, but if we're going to change it, I would prefer that we change it to a named web colour and not to a numeric code. - jc37 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an example of text (Azure) |
This is an example of text (LightCyan) |
This is an example of text (PaleTurquoise) |
This is an example of text (PowderBlue) |
This is an example of text (LightBlue) |
This is an example of text (SkyBlue) |
This is an example of text (Lavender) |
I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc37 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to LightCyan ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:
Courtesy pings to some CfD regulars as well as participants in the above discussion: @ AHI-3000, Cremastra, Fayenatic london, Jc37, LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, SilverLocust, Smasongarrison, SWinxy, ToadetteEdit, Ymblanter, and Zxcvbnm. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
If a category was previously considered and deleted, can it be reconsidered and undeleted? MR.RockGamer17 ( talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m in mobile right now and can’t list this category: Category:XMAG (magazine), which is pointless and has article content in it, and only one page. BhamBoi ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The bot just performed the merger of Category:Missing people found deceased to Category:Formerly missing people, following a CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart, which also saw input from Suncheon Boy, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison and Fayenatic london. However, the category should have been deleted, not merged, as consensus at the previous discussion was to delete the category as non-defining. Merging resulted in the pollution of the target category, which I understand was supposed to be about people who went missing but were later found alive. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, there's clearly a big difference between people who went missing then turned up alive and those who were found dead. They were presumably separately categorised at the time of the 2020 CfD, but following the deletion of Category:Formerly missing people found dead, editors then lumped them together in Category:Formerly missing people. This seems to go against the intent of that CfD and is quite clearly undesirable if you ask me; I can see why Minerva97 (whom I forgot to ping earlier) re-created and populated it as Category:Missing people found deceased, even if she was unaware of the previous discussion.
Anyway, however we got here, the more relevant question is how to move forward. We could start a new CfD to either (A) re-split Category:Formerly missing people into missing-then-alive and missing-then-dead people (overturning the previous CfD result), or (B) rename it to more clearly reflect what I assume is the original intended scope and purge the missing-then-dead to enforce the previous CfD outcome. However, maybe this discussion alone is enough indication that the situation and consensus has changed in the intervening three years, so "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", negating G4. In that case (C) the bot actions can simply be reverted, restoring Minerva97's split. That would avoid the need to manually purge or re-split the category again, which would be needed should we go the new CfD route. Or we could also (D) do nothing.
Pinging the still-active previous CfD participants Namiba, RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, and DexDor, and closer MER-C. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This whole conversation is frustratingly collegial; doesn't anyone feel adamant? - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This CSD request is incorrect and should never have been approved; the main article is at VfL Bochum and so all categories should be at Category:VfL Bochum XXX.
Please can the moves be reverted and the old categories restored on articles? Giant Snowman 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac ( talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Following the British, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cats, which have now all been moved from Queen's Counsel to King's Counsel, shouldn't the same be done for this category?
Thanks, -- NSH001 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The category Category:2023 in horse racing is included into Category:2023 in equestrian which has been deleted and moved to Category:2023 in equestrian sports. (The same problem is for every year). I tried to find which template which sets the category but I can not see where it is. Could someone help me please? It probably requires just one edit for every year in some template. Thanks. Ymblanter ( talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories.
What do you think about upmerging all team categories in
Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.
Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.
Pinging @ Marcocapelle, @ Ymblanter, @ Smasongarrison, @ HouseBlaster, @ Qwerfjkl. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Chemical Biology has been tagged for CfD, but has no corresponding discussion ( "this category's entry"). This seems to be a straight-forward duplicate of Category:Chemical biology, but I'm not familiar with CfD or categories in general. Should this be renominated or can this be merged/redirected with no discussion as uncontroversial? ― Syn path 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
category redirect|Category:Chemical biology}}
. —
andrybak (
talk)
23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The top half of the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.
The opposite approach is used on WP:RFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:BN, all of which have subpages for their "static", almost "unchanging" parts. E.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. In case of RFD, it can be very useful to see the history of the changes to the instructions/procedure separately from changes to the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Aside from taking every text snippet to wikiblame, are there any other ways of looking at how instructions and procedure of WP:CFD/S changed over time? — andrybak ( talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely... Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :) DonIago ( talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps ( talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
There really needs to be better integration between closing RMs and notifying this page (or a new central cleanup page) of the close. I stumbled across Talk:Alborz province#Requested move 24 January 2022, which seems that had no follow up work done to articles, sub-articles and categories. Gonnym ( talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).
The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.
In theory,
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion.
Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).
Moreover, I didn't know that all editors could challenge a closure and request a reopening at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and that this was regular practice.
... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as
an appropriate discussion page.
(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)
So:
Good day, NLeeuw ( talk) 16:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. Joke NLeeuw ( talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter ( talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories). House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 03:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)