Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Category:Netflix original programming by language

User:Woodensuperman and User:Qwerfjkl, the discussion covered two category formats: Fooian-language Netflix original programming and Fooian-language Netflix original films. The latter should have been merged into Category:Netflix original films rather than Category:Netflix original programming. --Paul 012 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Paul 012, indeed it should have. Was it not? — Qwerfjkltalk 08:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Going by this bot edit, I think no. --Paul 012 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Paul 012, it looks like I listed it incorrectly. The easiest way to resolve this is probably to revert the bot and then get the bot to handle it with the correct targets, which will unfortunately create a bunch of red-linked categories briefly. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012, are these correct?

Original erroneous merge targets

* [[:Category:Arabic-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Arabic-language films]] * [[:Category:Dutch-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Dutch-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:English-language films]] * [[:Category:Filipino-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Filipino-language films]] * [[:Category:French-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:French-language films]] * [[:Category:Hebrew-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Hebrew-language films]] * [[:Category:Hindi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Hindi-language films]] * [[:Category:Indonesian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Indonesian-language films]] * [[:Category:Italian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Italian-language films]] * [[:Category:Japanese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Japanese-language films]] * [[:Category:Korean-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Korean-language films]] * [[:Category:Malayalam-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Malayalam-language films]] * [[:Category:Mandarin-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Mandarin-language films]] * [[:Category:Marathi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Marathi-language films]] * [[:Category:Norwegian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Norwegian-language films]] * [[:Category:Polish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Polish-language films]] * [[:Category:Portuguese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Portuguese-language films]] * [[:Category:Russian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Russian-language films]] * [[:Category:Spanish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Spanish-language films]] * [[:Category:Swedish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Swedish-language films]] * [[:Category:Tamil-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Tamil-language films]] * [[:Category:Telugu-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Telugu-language films]] * [[:Category:Thai-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Thai-language films]] * [[:Category:Turkish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Turkish-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original films]] to [[:Category:English-language films]], [[:Category:Amazon Prime Video original films]] and [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original programming]]

Corrected targets

* [[:Category:Arabic-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Arabic-language films]] * [[:Category:Dutch-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Dutch-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:English-language films]] * [[:Category:Filipino-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Filipino-language films]] * [[:Category:French-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:French-language films]] * [[:Category:Hebrew-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Hebrew-language films]] * [[:Category:Hindi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Hindi-language films]] * [[:Category:Indonesian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Indonesian-language films]] * [[:Category:Italian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Italian-language films]] * [[:Category:Japanese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Japanese-language films]] * [[:Category:Korean-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Korean-language films]] * [[:Category:Malayalam-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Malayalam-language films]] * [[:Category:Mandarin-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Mandarin-language films]] * [[:Category:Marathi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Marathi-language films]] * [[:Category:Norwegian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Norwegian-language films]] * [[:Category:Polish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Polish-language films]] * [[:Category:Portuguese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Portuguese-language films]] * [[:Category:Russian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Russian-language films]] * [[:Category:Spanish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Spanish-language films]] * [[:Category:Swedish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Swedish-language films]] * [[:Category:Tamil-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Tamil-language films]] * [[:Category:Telugu-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Telugu-language films]] * [[:Category:Thai-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Thai-language films]] * [[:Category:Turkish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Turkish-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original films]] to [[:Category:English-language films]] and [[:Category:Amazon Prime Video original films]]

Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Yes, I believe these are now correct. (Though I'm not sure what to do with Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original programming. Perhaps another CfD is needed, as it was missed in the original nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to follow-up on this, but it appears 2pou has manually done the repairs. Thanks and sorry for that. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please list a cat for deletion

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)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

VfL Bochum

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? GiantSnowman 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I will submit the request for a reverse speedy move back for the categories. Geregen2 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes

 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)

Category:Missing people found deceased

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)

The merge was done because of speedy, not because of DGH's nomination. Unfortunately, the nomination was not placed in the correct place Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28. I don't know what the procedure is for cleaning up a category after a merge. Mason (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said. "A CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart". Here's the version of the CFDS page before the discussion was removed for processing, for your convenience. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I know that it was nominated for speedy, the same nom you're linking to. However, my point was that DGH's full nomination was posted before, but was not done correctly. Then I linked to the version of the nomination I was talking about: " Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28". Mason (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Presumably the speedy nomination was implemented by User:Ymblanter, pinging them just to sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I indeed processed the speedy yesterday. I overlooked the existence of the other nomination )or may be the template was not there). Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  The category had been populated by moving people from the parent, so it seemed correct to revert to status quo ante by merging. If there is consensus to exclude people who did not survive, Category:Formerly missing people should state this, with documentation on its talk page. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  It was easy to overlook. I only saw the nom because I was looking at someone's edit history. The nomination placed on a typo "Janruary 28", and I suspect that the template wasn't there. I also agree with FL, that the merge as implemented seemed to restore the status quo. Furthermore, I would argue that you can be notably missing and eventually turn up deceased. (Many of the examples in the discussion focused on how some people who were murdered might be reported as missing. But that's not really the same as being notable for being missing) Mason (talk) 22:33, 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)

Since there was a unanimous decision to merge I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

While I could see the justification for a divide between the living and the dead, I don't see any need to make it at the moment:

• I think less than 5 percent of all missing persons cases we have articles about that have been resolved have been resolved with the MP turning up alive. That might justify such a category, but ... not right now, I think. There are more articles we could write about such cases, but for now we haven't written them.
• I also think it would be pretty clear by implication that a missing person was found dead if among the other categories are "People murdered in ..." "Deaths by ..." or Category:Unsolved deaths. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just read through this and there are several completely reasonable options here but I favor B. It appears to me that the naming of Category:Formerly missing people lends itself to including people found dead (whether through an automated merge or manually per article). I would leave this merge in place and leave it up to anyone who felt strongly to open a new CFD to rename the category to something like Category:Formerly missing people found alive and then we can purge if that passes. (This is a just suggestion though and I favor any path forward that has anything close to a consensus.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  My slight inclination is D (but B is fine if sometone is so motivated), as that requires less action, effectively leaving the merge in place, and I like your suggestion of being open to missing people found alive. (There is a category that captures something close that, effectively temporarily missing people). I don't feel strongly about it.) Mason (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Daniel Case has stated The CFD is closed and I think that the unanimous decision should remain, since he is an administrator I think we should do what he says. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Deferring to an admin's opinion because they are an admin, isn't a compelling reason. (Sorry, @Daniel Case). I happen to agree with them. Hence lean D. But, their status as an admin wasn't part of my reasoning. Mason (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This whole conversation is frustratingly collegial; doesn't anyone feel adamant? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless you want to propose an actual rename to facilitate B. It seems that everyone is indifferent (either directly or indirectly) to make another change, except you. So, I think that we should just do D, which is nothing.Mason (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also support (B). --Paul_012 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested name? Mason (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, if we went by the name of the category that started this discussion, Category:Missing people found alive would be the logical counterpart, but I'm not sure there aren't better alternatives. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Irish Queen's Counsel

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)

NSH001, WP:CFDS? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, already done. That was just me being a lazy bastard (not having used the process for some time) and hoping someone would do it for me. Anyway, I've done it now. --NSH001 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reconsider & Undelete

If a category was previously considered and deleted, can it be reconsidered and undeleted? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If it's been a long time (several years) since the CfD and the reasoning from the CfD clearly no longer holds, a category can usually be re-created without issue. But if it's more recent, or if the situation isn't clear, the safest route I think would be to open a WP:deletion review to discuss whether the previous consensus still holds. In any case, the category would have to be manually re-populated. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012 what should if the deletion review does not work in favor of undeleting? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In most cases such an outcome probably indicates that consensus is against re-creating such a category, and that should be respected. There may be exceptions, such as a case being misunderstood, but the way forward will depend on the exact circumstances. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:2023 in horse racing

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)

Fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor league coaches by team

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 see there are some categories with over 10 entries, and these are probably legit, and there are others with two or three, these can be upmerged. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, the size isn't what I meant. I think these are trivial because most of these are former major league players so short minor league coaching stints - since minor leagues coaches are shifted around a lot in the farm system of a major league team - aren't defining to their career. Does that make sense? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but still needs obviously to go through CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, of course. I put two categories up before because the teams were defunct and had one article in each - and hence not likely to grow - so I'm just waiting for that to close. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Cfds not going through

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)

There is a backlog at WT:CFDW; it will be sorted eventually. WP:NODEADLINE is applicable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I was concerned that it may have been a bot issue (Mason suggested it might be) or something else as, usually, these go through within a week or some and there are a lot that have been stalled for over a month (and some even earlier). Hence why I brought it up. But there isn't any issue then I understand. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed lack of admins who add closed nominations to the page for bot. It does not help much that I am leaving for holidays today, but we will eventually sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Enjoy your holiday! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this to me User:Pppery; I wasn't aware that there was a backlog. Apologies for pressing the issue! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

History of instruction changes of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

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)

The criteria used to be at WP:CFSD rather than WP:CFDS until 2016.[1] Since then, you can search the archives of this talk page for "speedy criteria" if that's what interests you, as changes are generally proposed here before implementation. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The content removed from WP:CFSD in Special:Diff/749906670 was added to WP:CFDS in Special:Diff/749906249. Prior to that it was a section transclusion. Since then quite a lot changed: Special:Diff/749906249/1221394590. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Malformed nomination at Category:Chemical Biology

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? ― Synpath 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

From history of the page and Special:Contributions/ScienceChemBio, it looks like User:ScienceChemBio hasn't followed the instructions for the nomination to the end. A possible solution could be to replace content of page Category:Chemical Biology with {{category redirect|Category:Chemical biology}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have done this after skimming over some of the speedy merge criteria for CfD. It seems to qualify for WP:C2A and WP:C2D, but bots will clean up it up anyways per the info at the category redirect template. No fuss, thanks again. ― Synpath 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw no reason to keep the redirect, so I have deleted it. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, my sensibilities probably skew too much to RfD where the alternate captilization could be considered helpful as 'chemical biology' appears often enough as a proper noun in university course titles and textbooks. ― Synpath 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass-renaming (probably) needed

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)

I've opened the CfD on this. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

 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)

Better integration between closing RMs and this page

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)

Category:Suburbs of Kalgoorlie-Boulder

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)

Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Germany and German Confederation

I will not discuss the merits of the many deletions, upmerges, renames, ... of the categories related to these two names, as I fundamentally disagree with the years-long campaign to erase current and common names of places to restrict categories solely to the ultra-precise historical names exclusively, for no benefit to the readers at all (and good luck applying this to e.g. the Thirteen Colonies).

But if this kind of plan gets implemented, can you at least do it in an orderly fashion? On 4 Augustus, categories get changed from Germany to German Confederation[2]. But at the same time, on 3 Augustus, categories for the same periods get upmerged from Bavaria to Germany[3], resulting in the creation today of new such Germany categories([4]), and the nomination for speedy deletion as empty, also today, of the exact same category, but for the German Confederation[5] (which according to the collective wisdom here is the only correct one, while the new one is wrong). Fram (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a complete mess which resulted from several (independent?) CfDs, but at least I now deleted the 1846 category, and whatever was supposed to be there is in the 1846 German Confederation category. There might be other examples, I will take care of them when I check the backlinks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

I've never used WP:CFD before or really done anything with categories. I came across Category:Canadaian religion navigational boxes earlier, an obvious typo (Canadaian > Canadian) with only one page. Would it have been ok for me to just move Category:Canadaian religion navigational boxes to Category:Canadian religion navigational boxes and update the one page manually with the new name? Or is it a strict requirement to go through WP:CFD/S? All the messaging points to the latter, but that seems a bit bureaucratic to me. C F A 💬 02:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If Rangasyd consented then you could just move it summarily under WP:G7 or WP:IAR. But listing at CFDS can have the benefit of even better ideas, e.g. as this has only one member it should either be populated more or upmerged. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Done! Rangasyd (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Reopenings

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.

• Compare, for example, the standard statement after the closure of every CfD: ... 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.
• Besides, another regular practice (that I have followed as well) is going to the closing admin's personal talk page to request a reopening if I think there has been a procedural mistake.
• Finally, afaik, deletion review is not used very often for categories, nor are category talk pages. Often, people may take a category with a issue to CFD, without necessarily knowing a solution yet - just to draw attention to the issue for CFD regulars to read; because they know it's unlikely that cat talk pages are on watchlists of many people.
• So, this standard message suggesting venues for "subsequent comments" (including requesting reopenings) seems to differ very much from actual practice, and isn't very helpful.

(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)

So:

• Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?

• Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.

Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle, perhaps I could ask for your opinion as a start? NLeeuw (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: I do not have an issue with stipulation #3. The only thing that we should clearly avoid is that it leads to forumshopping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  How could stipulation #3 lead to forumshopping, then? NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  • In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

    First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.

    Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. NLeeuw (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Participation is often much thinner at CFD than at AFD. For several years, CFD was being closed rather slowly, so there was ample time to notice and participate if interested. Recently we have gained more active closers who are generally closing CFDs after 7 days, and I am therefore inclined to reopen given almost any request, so that a point of view may be aired fully in a traceable location. The request may be made on the closer's talk page or any other page. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Thanks for your belated reply. Could you explain how participation relates to the 2 questions I posed above? NLeeuw (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the point of stipulation #3 above is that if a discussion appears to have been closed prematurely, it should be reopened on request. This is also behind my explanation about participation.

  I have seen examples over the last year where CFDs have been closed after 7 days even though there was recent ongoing discussion which had not petered out, so I would have left them open for longer. In other words, premature closure definitely happens.

  Another reason that I have been easy about reopening CFDs is that there is often a delay between closing and implementing them. If the request arrives before implementation, then it is easy to reopen them.

  As for your questions, then: Q1 – Yes, in the case of closures that have not yet been implemented. Stipulation #3 should be softened in the case of CFD as category nominations gain less attention and therefore less participation. Q2 then becomes unnecessary. Once the decision has been implemented, then it's up to the closer to decide whether to reopen it or point to WP:DRV/WP:MRV. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response! I do understand that low CFD participation can sometimes make the decision process practically different from AFDs, but I see several concerns as well. I'll re-read and consider everything carefully before I reply, as this is a bit of a complicated issue. Good night for now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Certes/Reports/Circular categories

Anyone interested in helping clearing this report? — Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles in the same vein. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Television series by 20th Century Fox Television

Please undo the incorrect speedy and restore all pages to this category. Film and television categories do not get renamed to match current name as that is anachronistic and produces false information. We don't change history. I don't understand why this needs explaining each time. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The page says that categories get processed if there are no objections. You often show up a week later and express your frustration. May be instead you should raise your objections within 48h every time. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry my timetable isn't working for you. How about I don't need to repeat this same exact statements each time? This type of rename isn't speedy-able. Anyone interested in renaming should take it to a full discussion, advertised and open for at least 7 days. Gonnym (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:National artists of Thailand

@Ymblanter, @Hey man im josh, I did not see this or I would have opposed speedy. National Artist is a specific title, while national artist as a common noun doesn't mean anything. I would appreciate this being reverted and listed at full CfD, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I'm not opposed to the process being respected and reverted when something is contested this quickly afterwards, but I do have a question for clarification. My understand is the category is based on the page National Artist (Thailand) and the title of "National Artist". With titles we typically apply MOS:JOBTITLES, meaning, when "National Artist" becomes pluralized to "National Artists", it's no longer a title, but instead a common noun and should actually be downcased to national artists. Is "National Artists" an actual title used? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

À propos that, check out the inconsistent handling among Category:Poets laureate and its subcats and sub-subcats. Largoplazo (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In my understanding, JOBTITLES only applies when the title is actually a common noun. It shouldn't apply to specific titles such as Boden Professor of Sanskrit (where we have Category:Boden Professors of Sanskrit), because "Boden professor" is meaningless as a common noun. Proper nouns can take plural forms after all. That said, I'm not sure about the Thai National Artist title since it's an award, and in some ways directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural; to compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but Best Actor winners). I'm not sure if this category shouldn't be reworded along the same lines. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do feel the current capitalization is correct, I have no problem with the change being reverted. After all, CFDS is for non-controversial changes. @Ymblanter: Is it normal to just place the category revert on WP:CFDS/Working? Or should it go through WP:CFDS again? Sorry for the delay @Paul 012, I don't typically edit on weekends. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, we can just put it back, I occasionally do this if there are objections within a reasonable time frame. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Midlothian

Hello. I've noticed that there's a category requiring disambiguation, but I can't find any policy guidelines on the right way to do it.

Category:People from Midlothian is for people from the county in Scotland, and it's a subcategory of Category:Midlothian -> Category:People associated with Midlothian. There's also Category:People from Midlothian, Illinois, and Category:People from Midlothian, Virginia, which are for places in the US named after the place in Scotland. This would avoid bios for people from one of the five Midlothians in the US getting added to Category:People from Midlothian by mistake.

I could hatnote Category:People from Midlothian, since it seems to be the category equivalent of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or I could start a CFD discussion to move it to Category:People from Midlothian, Scotland with the redirect then containing Template:Category disambiguation, like Category:People from Limerick. But it seems likely that I just haven't found the policy guideline on this yet. Thanks for any advice. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not speedy-able but there is a general tendency in category naming to disambiguate. Would need a full CfD for it. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

New category for professional associations of economists?

I propose to create Category:Economics-related professional associations, perhaps under a simpler name. I'd welcome feedback here. Key background:

• There are about 10 articles about societies of economists in Category:Business and finance professional associations. That's not quite where they belong; some of these are overwhelmingly academic, and don't address business or finance topics. I'd put all 10 into this new category and take some out of the business and finance category.
• The new category would be in Category:Professional associations by profession, parallel to the business/finance one, and to natural peers in the fields of psychology, architecture, and geography.
• How to name it? I would like a concise name like "Societies of economists" but the longer name "economics-related professional associations" is sensible too -- it's accurate and would follow the naming system established by parallel groups. Any thoughts or suggestions? Is a shorter name okay?
• I've invited input at WikiProject Economics.
• Will watch for news here and eventually just do it.

Thanks for any advice. -- econterms (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a Category:Economics societies, would adding it to Category:Professional associations by profession solve the problem? TSventon (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

econterms, I have done as I suggested above, but I will not object if anyone has a better idea. TSventon (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Terrific. That does the trick. I'll put these 10 in that Category. Thank you, TSventon! -- econterms (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

CFD notification template Template talk:Cfd mass notice contains section links

I posted this at Template talk:Cfd mass notice, but I suspect that nobody will see my note there. The template contains a template transclusion in a section header when it is used in talk pages, contrary to MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, looks like {{Section link}} isn't subst:able. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is, feel free to change the template yourself. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I made it subst'able and updated the notice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Bot not processing speedy moves?

I think the speedy moves were not processed for two days. Anybody knows what is happening? Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@JJMC89: ? Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, we probably need to wait until all LGBTQ categories have been processed. Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that set of categories was keeping the bot busy. Making use of WP:CFD/W/L for such large batches would avoid this issue since that page gets processed independently. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

But this is precisely where they were, may be we just moved them too late. Thanks anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)