Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10


Older discussions moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/old.

Not so old discussions moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/old2.

Even less old discussions moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/old3.

See Wikipedia talk:Category titles for the current discussion involving future category structures and naming. This pertains to, but is not limited to: "<Foo> by Country", Abbreviated country titles, US versus American, Continents, Formal names versus common names, etc.. Thank you. Who?¿? 02:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review proposal

In a post a few sections up, I mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. That proposal received support from those who commented. The idea is to extend the scope of VfU to include the examination of disputed non-delete outcomes and provide a community-based forum for review.

There is now a further proposal to clarify how the new system will work. Please comment on both aspect at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, thanks. -Splashtalk 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming this page?

This page is called "categories for deletion" but deletion is only one of the things it is for. I suggest it should be renamed "Categories for deletion or amendment". Osomec 11:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

support this concept, see #Rename 'Categories for deletion' below, as the use of the tool as outgrown its name. Ancheta Wis 09:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming is a mess

Speedy renaming has an even higher rate of inappropriate entries than I expected. What an unnecessary mess CalJW 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The flip side of this is that every "regular" CFD entry takes effort for multiple editors to read and then support or oppose and then more effort to close. For cases where the outcome is obvious, this is an unnecessary waste of multiple editors' time. The question is whether it's worse to make an occasional mistake with speedy (and the 2-day waiting period is intended to catch at least the immediately obvious mistakes) or to burden "regular" CFD with numerous, effectively redundant requests. Using by-country naming conventions for speedy renaming is an attempt to unburden CFD from dealing with these requests. It's new. There might be some startup issues. But it's far too early to decide it's a mess. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
What burden? Listing a bunch of cats for renaming requires listing them (which must be done anyway) a couple of editors saying "fine" and waiting five days instead of two. What's the rush? Septentrionalis 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
They're listed in both cases (same front end) and they end up in the cleanup overhead bucket (same back end), but there's a large difference in the middle. With speedy, no one need comment unless there's an issue. With regular CFD, at least one other editor needs to comment (and several probably will), there's a possibility (perhaps remote) that the CFD commenter(s) won't reach a consensus, and then after waiting a week somebody has to "close" the CFD discussion. Would you use regular CFD for typos and miscapitalizations? Keeping these separate also reduces the sheer volume of CFD discussions, which at least some editors are concerned about. For discussions with an essentially preordained outcome, why the delay? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


As what I have suggested in the CFM discussion, I have modified category:institutions according to the definitions in the institution article. I would like to have the assistance from different people to reorganise the subcategories of category:institutions by country according to institution. Thanks. — Instantnood 07:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using ambiguous words as categories. This will only add confusion. Categories are used to classify things into clearly distinctive groups, not to put oranges and orangs into one basket. Why would one want category:Professional associations and morality in one category? I relisted the category for deletion. mikka (t) 07:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact I've already added an intro, according to the institution article.. But then alright.. can anybody suggest a better alternative for the same meaning? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 08:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion has continued at Wikipedia:categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 4#Category:Institutions 2. — Instantnood 18:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This category has already been slotted for merging, after which it will be deleted. This is a duplicate and pointless Cfd, which I will be closing. The only reason the category even still exists, is because I am out of town and Cfd closings are seriously backed up. Who?¿? 18:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I have closed this Cfd. Please discuss, or list any objection, or suggestions for the "merge/deletion" here. Thank you. Who?¿? 19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
copied from closed cfd. Who?¿? 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
What did Charitable trust and some others do in this category then? It is an organization, pure and simple (I recategorized it a sec ago). mikka (t) 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC

As I see from Instantnood's intentions, you may be looking for "category:Social institutions" (it turns out someone else created it, empty, a while ago), which may be further subdivided in category:Informal institutions (ethics, justice) category:Formalized institutions (marriage, law, government). Since this is a pretty high-level category, any additions into it must be discussed at its Category talk:Social institutions page. mikka (t) 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (taken from Mikka's comment at the Cfd page [1])

In response to Mikka's comment at the Cfd page [2], Category:social institutions is a much younger category than Category:institutions. What I said was that category:institutions looks to be originally created to be intended for institution as according to the definitions in that article. It was people who were unaware of that and grouped articles on organisations to it, and thus changed the scope of it. I admit "social institutions" could be an alternative, though. — Instantnood 19:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
To answer the above question, yes unfortunately the category will probably be merged by a bot. Not many other users have been participating in the Cfd cleanup. I invite you, and any other user to move any articles to an appropriate category, if you feel it should not be merged into the new category. I do not have the time at the moment to do any by hand. Thanks. Who?¿? 19:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can the merge be suspended? Since it involves the definitions of institutions, which was actually not addressed in the previous Cfm. A bot may not be able to tell what are organisations, and what are not. I have tried recategorised some of the articles, but it takes time and it may not be entirely accurate. — Instantnood 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I made a note on the entry to not be done by a bot, and possibly by users familiar with the subject area. I don't believe Beland is using Pearle for CFD's right now, so I won't run my bot on it. Who?¿? 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much. In addition to the parent category, I have manually recategorised the content of category:Hong Kong institutions, since that's what I am familiar with. I would like to have the assistance from other people to help fixing the categories of other countries. — Instantnood 21:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
(in addition to my previous comment at 19:41, October 4) I have taken a look at the social institution article, and compared it with institution. It seems to me that they are not exactly the same thing. I'd say category:social institutions is not a good alternative to category:institutions, if the word "institutions" is deemed confusing. — Instantnood 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

New speedy criteria

These were discussed previously at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming but I am reproposing them and modifying them slightly as it's possible too much time has elapsed to list them as criteria. Hiding talk 11:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviations of country names

In category names, any instances of abbreviated country names should be expanded: for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States; instances of UK or U.K. should be renamed to the United Kingdom, instances of U.S.S.R or USSR should be renamed to the Soviet Union.

In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name the country, which states: the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country, any instances of abbreviated country names should thus be so expanded: for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States; instances of UK or U.K. should be renamed to the United Kingdom, instances of U.S.S.R or USSR should be renamed to the Soviet Union.

This proposal is as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style: When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (e.g. "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.. Since categorisation is a form of listing by country, as sub-categories are displayed as a list in parent categories, this policy should apply here.


  • This has become de facto on CfD now. It would be nice to write it down and give ourselves somewhere of 'our own' to point to, as well as the MoS. -Splashtalk 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, it's been a week and no objections so I have added it as criteria. Hiding talk 09:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Strong oppose This is represented as a non-controversial issue, but it actually touches on the most controversial issue in categorisation, ie. the "American" / "United States" people issue. Under this policy category:U.S. businesspeople could be speedy renamed as United States businesspeople when many people strongly prefer category:American businesspeople. There may be other sensitive cases, and there have been considerable and quite recent objections to such changes. Thus this is highly inappropriate as a speedy criterion. CalJW 09:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The American versus United States issue is reaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. However, this criterion doesn't really touch on that issue, it merely expands abbreviations in country names as per the Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). It makes no assertion in terms of the use of phrase to denote nationality as CalJW seems to suggest. If there are other sensitive cases, they can be debated as and when they arise. Hiding talk 10:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If there are more categories which use "United States" that is an argument in support of using it for all categories. I am wholly unsatisfied with your response, which does nothing to address my concerns. You always want to rush things at the policy level, but I will probably make more nominations in this area than you.. Please report back when all the people categories have actually been renamed. CalJW 21:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Having had a thorough trawl through the United States menu, most of the categories which use "U.S." could probably do with a change of word order too. Thus it is better that they are properly debated. If we merely expand "U.S." this is less likely to get done, and we will be left with less than ideal category names. I have made a good number of nominations and will do another batch at some point. CalJW 11:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hiding: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American is not gathering a "consensus", it is collecting lists of arguments. That is structured for discussion, and readers who agree with random arguments there will have no reason to write there. (SEWilco 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

Use the most neutral and/or generic name

This is a clause from Wikipedia:Categorization of people. It was previously debated as "Famous" people and "Controversial" people or things.

The proposal is:

  • Any category name which utilises an adjectival modifier, for example referring to "famous things", "controversial people", "bad objects", etc. should be renamed to exclude the adjectival modifier. Exceptions to this proposal would be categorising by race, nationality or gender.

This follows from Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lists which states: Convention: Put a list of Xs as list of Xs, rather than Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs, list of all Xs, etc. See wikipedia:list.

And from the afore mentioned Wikipedia:Categorization of people, which reads: Some categories can be used in a stigmatizing way; always try to find the most neutral and/or generic name.


  • So Category:Mad scientist character should be just Category:Scientist character? (SEWilco 15:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC))
    • If it was speedied for a rename under this proposal and no-one objected in the two day period, then it would become that, yes. I can make no judgement on what it should be, that's the purpose of listing it. I'm sorry if I'm sounding facetious, it's just that I'm not clear what your question is asking. Hiding talk 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of speedy for this. Whether a rename or delete is more appropriate under this rule is not obvious, which I think means this takes case by case thought (I think the idea of speedies is that they should be entirely obvious). -- Rick Block (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, help me out a little here. The Famous People clause from which this clause is derived had consensus and can technically be added as a criteria, yes? Hiding talk 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I would think so (although there might be a more or less legitimate argument that Wikipedia:Centralized discussion has no offiical standing since it is only marked as "proposed"). If you're actually wondering why I oppose this but supported that, dropping "famous" or "notable" from a category name seems substantially different from dropping any adjective. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Fair play, but what I'm trying to get at in my own clumsy way is if it is possible to move those from being proposals to being accepted criteria. If the above proposal is no good, is that one still okay? Hiding talk 19:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Hmmmm? Which one? -Splashtalk 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would support almost any CfD that was brought on these grounds. However, I am not sure this can be a speedy since it is not always obvious what the new name should be or, as Rick Block says, whether we need to merge or delete. The phrasing is also too broad since there are tons of adjectives that are fine in cat names. I can't quickly think of a phrasing that would catch the ones we mean to catch and miss the rest; but my first concern is the more important I think. Perhaps we can just rely on the document cited above for these purposes but, if we can construct a suitable phrasing, I'd support it as a speedy. -Splashtalk 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It isn't always going to be obvious whether the category should even exist, or what it should be called if it should. CalJW 09:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Forbidding an entire class of words can alter meanings too much. (SEWilco 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

Talk pages of categories

Would the discussion pages of categories be moved accordingly after the corresponding categories are renamed? Or would they be kept (for record) if the corresponding categories are deleted? — Instantnood 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. What is the current practice when renaming for tipos? Hiding talk 12:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
If the category is deleted, it's talk page would be too. If it had been renamed, I'm not sure whether the talk would first be moved to the new name before deleting the redirect but it probably ought to be. If it had been merged....then I'm not sure what to do, but I would personally be inclined to delete it. -Splashtalk 02:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I move any talk page associated with a merge/rename, and I also fix links under "what links here" on the category before I delete it. If I delete a category, I just delete the talk page, as per guide to deletion. Who?¿? 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
But what if source and target cats both have talk pages? History merge? Might be quite tricky. -Splashtalk 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Should the talk page of deleted categories be kept? From what I experienced talk pages of some deleted articles were kept. — Instantnood 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No, talk pages of deleted anythings should not be kept, they're a G8 speedy. Prior to the present construction of V/AfD debates were pasted onto talk pages and so they serve as a record that may not exist elsewhere. For a long time now, though, any orphaned talk pages are almost always accidental. The same applies to category talk:. -Splashtalk 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there is a guideline or policy on this, I have been trying to find the link for you. Basically it states that the talk page should be deleted before the category, either that or I'm on some new drug ;-o If I can find it I will provide a link, so you can ask about it on that talk page. Who?¿? 21:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually this was the page I've recently found, but now it sounds more like something that was left.. [1] [2].  :-) — Instantnood 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy criteria being talked about...

...over at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 5#Criteria for categories. An opportunity (imo) to dispose of the speedy-if-empty-for-an-indeterminable-period rules that have caused unfortunate happenstances at times. -Splashtalk 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CFD cleanup

I have been considering adding a small note or banner to Recent Changes page to invite users to help with CFD Cleanup. Though I would prefer to propose it first, not sure where to do that, or to advertise that users are definately needed to help with cleanup. I've been out of town, just got back today, and been totally swamped, so there are plenty of articles to move. All this talk of editcountitis, I think this is your chance to boost yours :) Who?¿? 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't advertise other backlogs anywhere, because most deletion processes have them. It's better to 'advertise' on Beland's talk page; he's usually quick to unleash Pearle. Or I could learn how to clone Pearle or something. Oh, and James F. has a bot to that he's been using lately. I think talk page messages are probably sufficient. -Splashtalk 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree with not advertsing stuff like this, the difference with AFD is a ton of users and admins work on it. We usually only have the same users that vote, and then the ones that vote on one particular cat, but as far as cleanup is concerned, that activity has gone way down. Beland has been buzy with cleanup tasks a lot lately, I think. I guess I could get CanusRufis and James F a ring. Who?¿? 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"?

A "whobot" is busy switching people from the "House of Plantagenet" category to a "House of Anjou" category, referencing the categories for deletion page. Yet I cannot find any discussion of this rather peculiar choice there. Where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"? Did it occur to no one that "House of Plantagenet" is a subset of the First "House of Anjou" and that Plantagenet kings are usually referred to as Plantagenets, or, if referencing their connection to France, an "Angevin Dynasty"? We shouldn't be needlessly confusing, and we should use the more specific category. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27#British royal houses. -Splashtalk 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. These should really remain linked from the CFD template while bots are working. The decision seems to have been made on the basis that a foolish consistency is better than clarity in categorization. - Nunh-huh 00:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was still listed under its CFD day page on CFD cleanup, but I moved it to Whobot's task page. The cfd tag is still on the cat, and it was placed on that day, so you could find it in the archives that way. However, I will put the CFD day link on User:Whobot/tasks. Who?¿? 00:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't listed on the page linked to today, when whobot was making the changes, and no, I couldn't find it, which is why I asked, and you'd have had trouble finding it too if you hadn't already known where it was. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I had just removed it about 10 minutes before you asked, and put it on Whobots task list. As for the CFD link on the category, that just points to CFD, not to the CFD day page, so if you click on it, it only goes to the main CFD page. I didn't say anything about you asking where it was, that is fine, I was just saying, one could check the history of the category and would have found what day it was tagged {{cfd}}, that would tell you what day to look in the archives. Reguardless, since it is a few days old, there would not normally be a link to the discussion on the main CFD page while anyone was doing cleanup, we recently just added the CFD day link to the cleanup section for that reason. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thats why I copied the day link pages to Whobot's task page. Who?¿? 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Links should remain until you (or anyone else involved) have finished mucking about with the categories involved. I wouldn't have, and didn't have, any idea or clue where to look for the discussion. The fact that you can enumerate a list of links I could have (somehow intuited that I might have) clicked thru is of no assistance whatsoever to anyone monitoring your bot's changes. My suggestion is you remove the page AFTER you have finished, not before. If the CFD template needs fixing so that it points to the discussion, it should be fixed. - Nunh-huh 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Reguardless, there was ample notification of this change on the category, cleanup is the inevitable step. I admitted to my mistake of moving the link w/o having a day link, that does not change the fact that the consensus was to delete. This category will be deleted, again, please do not recreate it, especially after we provided you a link to the discussion. I also ask that you visit WP:Civil, as I have been nothing but cordial with you. Thank you. Who?¿? 03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What have I said that you find uncivil? I've disagreed with your way of doing things, and told you a better way to do them. That's not uncivil, and it's inappropriate of you to suggest that it is. - Nunh-huh 04:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

templates need updating

The current templates used with this page do not take into account the per-day scheme, and the links go bad when the article goes off the main page. Does anyone lese thing this needs to be fixed? Templates to update would include

I don't know if it would be better to update these or make new ones, as per template:cfdud. --ssd 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the cat name is cofusing: is it about societies that have chapter in different countries or societies of international students (those with f1 or j1 visa in the US). However, I cannot come up with a rename. Can you help?

P.s. I know it's not the greatest place to post it, but, well... Renata3 03:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Category:Basque symbols?

I find that Basque symbols has been moved to Category:Basque cultural icons with a note by User:Whobot of Cleanup per WP:CFD (moving Category:Basque_symbols to Category:Basque_cultural_icons)) but I don't find anything about it in 2005-08-03. --Error 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that, I manually add the date to the list the bot runs, It should have been 1 Oct. Here is the cfd log. Who?¿? 00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List of rivers of Iceland

Somehow this just looks wrong. Should the few that look like this in Category:Lists of rivers be renamed? Not sure that something is wrong, it's just that the double 'of' looks odd. Vegaswikian 05:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope it's right. See it's parent Category:Lists of places, we categorize all the lists too, easier to find them than looking at the list of lists. Who?¿? 05:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of a speedy criteria

CalJW removed this criteria from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

  • Abbreviation expanding for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country (e.g. US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States)

I thought it had gained consensus both on this page and at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming. There already exists guideline and policy to the effect that abbreviation should be avoided, as stated when I proposed this criterion. How do we move this on in a way that avoids a revert war. I don't quite understand the objection that it actually touches on the most controversial issue in categorisation, ie. the "American" / "United States" people issue. This renaming does not engage in that area since the controversy will exist regardless of whether it is U.S. or United States. Nowhere does this policy attempt to state that United States should be preferred over U.S., and I woould appreciate other people's thoughts on this, and also on the correct procedure for debating the removal of a criterion. Can one simply remove any part of policy one does not like, or must there be debate and a consensus arrived at first? CalJW's other objection, that a speedy renaming under this move would prevent another renaming also seems flawed to me. Surely that would also apply to any typo in a bad name. Should we thus remove criteria number 1? If a bad name exists, it will be caught whether it has been speedied under this criteria or not, indeed, one could argue that listing it here for speedying would enhance the chance that it is spotted. Hiding talk 11:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added it back with a clarification intended to address at least one of CalJW's concerns. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. This criterion does have consensus by earlier discussion, not to mention our manual of style entry to avoid abbreviation. Consensus does not equal unanimity, and speedy renames are neither set in stone nor impossible to reverse. Radiant_>|< 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • All this fuss to get this bad policy imposed, and the only person who has done anything much about removing the abbreviations since is me. CalJW 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename 'Categories for deletion'

There has been a request to rename a category which links to this page. Unfortunately, the reflex action to simply call for a deletion when the request was for a rename calls for this category itself to be renamed: The template said "This category has been nominated for renaming" while the link comes here to CFD. Thus the category has been somehow augmented to Deletion or Renaming. Please consider renaming this category itself.

My motivation is that the Category:Reference is being considered for renaming to another name. Now it is subject to a vote for Deletion as well! Can you imagine how this will be received if it becomes known that the encyclopedists here do not consider "Reference" to be part of an encyclopedia? The Reference section of a Public Library includes Encyclopedias, Atlases, Who's Who, and other works typically too valuable to loan out. Thus there is a precedent for mirroring the operation of a Library, just like the Reference Desk section of a Library. Ancheta Wis 06:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

So you want Wikipedia:Categories for deletion renamed, not the category? It's pretty much a catch all, for deletion, merging, and renaming. Although it is similiar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion name, we do it all here. Problem is, if we rename it to del and ren, we would have to add merge too, which would make it long. How about a more neutral naming of something like WP:Category discussions (not really but an idea). Also CFD was recently renamed if I recall correctly. Any suggestions? «»Who?¿?meta 07:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Some possible names: Categories under Review, or Categories to Review or Categories for Review, ... any D word ought to be expunged if you don't want Defensive behavior. Ancheta Wis 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The Current page is the subject of Feature Creep: First Deletion, then Merging, Renaming, etc. If a Fundamental category is up for rename (only), then we should not also be questioning whether it should exist at all. That is another discussion on another page, preferably. It's like discussing Library Fines on the same Docket as Murders. Ancheta Wis 14:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Renaming fairly clearly implies deletion in the case of categories. Leaving the old category lying around is pointless if it is empty, unless there is a need for a {{categoryredirect}}. Merging is much the same, usually, since here it means "move the articles from this cat to the other, but retain the idea of the categorization". It's basically the same as a rename, except that the target category already exists. Since it's basically a rename, the reason for deletion is the same as in that case. There's no scope creep. And the divergence of editor's comments from the nominator's desire is entirely in keeping with the other deletion processes, most notably AfD. On AfD things are frequently merged/redirected/transwikied rather than deleted. But should we rename AfD to Articles for Deletion, Keeping, Renaming, Transwikiing and Merging? Surely not. Also changing to one of the above names would generate quite a bit of work for little return and leave it out of step with all the other deletion processes. -Splashtalk 16:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Splash here. Rename really means move to a new category and delete the old one, as there are no category redirects. Fine as it is.  BD2412 talk 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree, I really think it is fine as is, I was merely offering suggestions on neutral ground :) Or something like that. I think, if we rename it, it should be Wikipedians:Category complaint department >B-) «»Who?¿?meta 04:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Then what about Categories for Comment. Ancheta Wis 09:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
One (probably minor) issue is that some people might be afraid of filing a rename request since they risk having the category actualy deleted instead of renamed once it's "on the radar". Also ocationaly such requests end in a "no consensus" because the votes are split 3 ways between rename, keep and delete. Another problem is that when people see the "this category have been nominated for renaming" tag on the category they might think that the rename is a "no brainer" and don't bother to vote, or they don't care what it's named, and thus they never visit the vote page resulting in 3-4 deletionists sucessfully getting it deleted even if lots of people found it usefull but didn't bother with what they thought was a rename debate (I'm not saying this happens often, but I've seen one or two people confused by it). I fully understnad why it's all currently handled in one place, what with all the boot work required to manage categories, but aside from that it might IMHO be an idea (though I bet it's been discussed to death somewhere else before) to split the scope of CFD in two and have a new page dealing purely with renames. The CFD page can then focus on mergers and deletions, simmilar to how WP:RM and WP:AFD work for articles. That way if someone want to delete something that's up for renaming they have to at least slap a seperate "nominated for deletion" tag on it. Just something to ponder, I don't rely care much either way myself. --Sherool 19:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CSD G changes

I have upated the CSD policy page based on a prior discussion, or the lack of opposition to. I have set the minimum time for empty categories to 72 hours, and a new sub rule that it doesn't apply to categories currently listed on CFD. Reasoning:

  • Category gets created, population doesn't quickly commence, technically empty for 24 hours, gets deleted.
  • Flaw, recreation is CSD criterion, should allow time for population.
  • The populate tag can be placed and listed.
  • Categories listed on CFD have a chance of being renamed and may prompt users to work on category.
  • According to Category deletion policy if a CFD discussion on an empty category is closed "no consensus", it should not be deleted for 30 days.
  • Since speedies have no discussion, technically there is no consensus. Speedies should not have to match this, but should allow for change based on this.

Any comments appreciated. «»Who?¿?meta 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CFM target template?

The instructions say to put {{cfm}} on the category page proposed to be merged from. This template text includes "...nominated for merging into Category Y". (my bolding). Is there a corresponding template for the target category to say something like "Category X has been nominated to be merged into this category. Please see that page's entry on the categories for deletion and renaming page for the proposal, justification, and discussion." ? --Scott Davis Talk 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • To my knowledge, no. Feel free to create one. Radiant_>|< 09:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

cfr template link to discussion does not link to any discussion

The link with the name this page's entry on Template:Cfr links to [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#old category to new category]]. However, that is not the place where the discussion is situated when following the procedure described on this page. According to that procedure, the discussion is placed at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/[current date]#old category to new category]]. I'm a little confused and I hope I didn't get this all wrong. -- j. 'mach' wust | 23:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not a problem because both links point to the same page. That's because the /log/currentdate pages are all included into the main CFD page. Radiant_>|< 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Can someone look at the sub cats in Category:Parks? I think these should be renamed to Parks of Foo if I understand the convention. I'm not sure so would like a more experienced editor to comment or make the recommendation. Vegaswikian 07:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, and I've put it on the main page. But feel free to nominate things, it's not that hard :) Radiant_>|< 15:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Any objections to removing the list of all items on SFD from here? I think that everybody who needs to know about SFD already knows it, so no point in listing everything twice. Radiant_>|< 17:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Category search tool

Many of the most disputed listings on CfD are combined categories like (Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people + Category:Murderers →) Category:LGBT murderers. If we ask nicely, maybe we can persuade our wonderful developers to create a new tool for category pages. This tool would allow users to search a category for articles that are also members of another category. For example, specifying Category:Murderers in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people would list all the people who are GLB and have been convicted of murder. This would return Aileen Wuornos among others. Guanaco 20:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Old CfD discussions link template

I've created something that looks like template:oldvfd/template:oldafd See

I think this would be useful, as sometimes I'd like to know about past CfDs - 20:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Cats with non-standard decade nomenclature--delete or rename?

The recently created cats Category:Pop songs of the 2000 zeroes, Category:Pop songs of the 1970's, Category:Pop songs of the 1980's, and Category:Pop songs of the 1990's don't seem OK as is, but I don't know if they should just be renamed to match the standard decades format (EG Category:Pop songs of the 1990s to match 1990s, Category:Pop songs of the 2000s to match 2000s, etc.), or deleted as redundant with Category:1991 songs, Category:1992 songs, etc., (or deleted for other reasons, such as potential size) and the CfD instructions don't seem to allow for 'multiple possible outcome' nominations. Any suggestions? Anybody want to take over driving this issue? 06:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • CFD (or CFR in this case) is actually fairly free-form on multiple outcomes. You nominate it with a suggested outcome, but are free to express alternatives in your supporting arguments. The submission then has a week to find a conscensous as to the best way to go. It's not locked into just yes or no on your original outcome. Easy enough to do. - TexasAndroid 22:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is misnamed

I have just added two categories but I don't want either of them to be deleted. Please can the page be renamed? I see no counter arguments in the previous discussion that amount to more than a defense of inertia. Sumahoy 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Victims of Nazi justice

Category:Victims of Nazi justice is category with a too large scope, it's not well defined

Can someone look into this? --Melaen 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions from RFA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship seems to make use of some good ideas that CFD would be improved by. Specifically, a) have each nomination in its own template, rather than lumped in with an entire day's worth of templates, to make watching a particular category easier, and b) having subsections for support/oppose (or in CFD's case keep/rename/merge/delete), with people using separate

  1. auto-numbered lists
  2. to make counting the

number of votes for each side effortless. —Simetrical (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind much about the pages thing, but would adamantly oppose the numbered lists. We don't use them in deletion processes, period. We tried it, and it didn't work because it reduces it to a vote and makes what is actually a discussion hard to follow because the comments aren't threaded anymore. RfA is different for a variety of reasons. Splash 03:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a somewhat fuzzy vote that involves discussion. Part of the process is that if consensus is not reached, the category is kept. The degree of consensus is determined almost entirely by how many people say "support" vs. "oppose", therefore it's a vote with a supermajority requirement and some leeway under unusual circumstances (e.g., perhaps if one side has only 50% of the vote but debates their point extensively, while the other side makes no comments on their reasoning).

But that part is academic. I'm not a frequent contributor to this particular page, so I guess if you tried that but decided to stop consensus must be against it. (I can't see why, though—you can thread comments easily enough in numbered lists. But whatever.) —Simetrical (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Splash on the voting/discussion issue. I also don't believe it will help to have each discussion on a separate page. There are many discussions that have only one or two people weighing in. That would seem to be more work than is really necessary for not much gain. --Kbdank71 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bot needed

Anyone running a bot that could help out with CFD cleanup, please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#To_be_emptied_or_moved. We've got quite a backlog that needs to be taken care of. Thanks in advance. --Kbdank71 18:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a bot, but I do have AWB, which makes doing this chore a lot easier. I'll do what I can. K1Bond007 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The subcategories of Category:American people by national origin are totally inconsistent over hyphenation. Which form is correct? The rest will need to be changed. --TimPope 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There has been some recent abuse with {{categoryredirect}}. Under further consideration, I believe that the feature should be restricted to sysops or bureaucrats who were the last one to edit. (Under the premise that the last edit was made to add the categoryredirect template, and no one should be really adding anything else other than to correct vandalism... in which case, most vandalism is reverted by an admin anyway...) NekoDaemon will generate a list of categories that were skipped due the fact that the last edit was not made by a sysop or a bureaucrat. Questions? Thoughts? Comments? --AllyUnion (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I'll take that a week of silence is an indication that no one cares, and I'll proceed with the changes. --AllyUnion (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

Due to the fact that Who is on break (and thus Whobot), we've been using it to have NekoDaemon move over categories to the new renamed category - then deleting the old. This is the only reason I've been using it. If you don't wish me to use it in this manner, just let me know. K1Bond007 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. BTW - both K1Bond007 and myself are admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about either of you, specifically, but there has been incidents of vandals using the category redirect without a CFD discussion. In regards to the suggestion for using CFD to move stuff for deletion or some kind of tool for the bot to make a high speed edit in removing, moving, etc the category, I am willing to create such a feature, but I'm thinking using it based on a restriction (like you have to have a sysop flag) would be better. And I had indicated in the past that was an unintended side effect anyway. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be very open to whatever aid you can give CFD in lightening the load and making it so we don't get backed up all the time. The sysop idea would be great. K1Bond007 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's just my opinion that it is more troublesome for the bot to search for a related CFD discussion and it would be easier to just limit access to the community of trusted users. NekoDaemon would be able to perform categoryredirects if and only if the last edit was made by an sysop/bureaucrat. It would save the hassle of reverting and such. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation/holiday. I agree with the above proposal. --Kbdank71 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Category being moved" tag?

Is there a tag that could be placed on a category that is currently being moved? The reason I ask is that I was doing a category move as part of WP:SFD and someone slapped a {{merge}} tag on both categories and added a note to the talk page of the assocated template.

If I could have added a tag that said something like "The contents of this category are currently being moved to category:x" it might have helped matters.

So, does such a thing exist? If not, would it be OK if I created one along the same lines as {{cfm}}? --TheParanoidOne 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-stub categories that are nominated for renaming have a {{cfr}} (or equivalent) tag referring to the CFD discussion about the proposed rename. Stub categories should similarly have a {{sfr-c}}. Seems to me this should be sufficient. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)