Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: WT:CFD/W, WT:CAT, and WT:CATP
See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User and WT:CFD/W/M
Shortcut
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 0 28 28
TfD 0 0 1 25 26
MfD 0 0 1 7 8
FfD 0 0 1 8 9
RfD 0 0 0 23 23
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

Cosmetic change

[edit]

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:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was:
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I come from WP:TPER.) The color has also struck me as quite gaudy, though this change is quite minor. There was a bold attempt at a lighter shade in 2007, as can be seen at /Log/2007 September 12. This won't update any previous closes, since the template is subst'ed. SilverLocust 💬 22:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And while we're at it, following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color as well. - jc37 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're on web colours, which I agree would make sense;  Lavender  ,  LightCyan  and  Azure  are probably the best options in keeping with a pale-blue theme. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're only looking at those choices, I think the Azure would be too pale. It needs to show it's closed. And I think the Lavendar seems more violet than blue.
Besides  LightCyan  I suppose there's also  PaleTurquoise ,  PowderBlue ,  LightBlue ,  SkyBlue . The PaleTurquoise seems closest to your second closed example above. Though I'm not sure the small boxes show us clarity/contrast well enough. - jc37 00:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the small boxes. Of your suggestions above; LightBlue and SkyBlue seem too dark. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I like Lavender – it is slightly purple, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug (though I am certainly biased as it is my second favorite color, after pink.  HotPink , anyone?). Azure and LightCyan are a close seconds. All of the choices above are W3C AAA-compliant for black text (including HotPink!). HouseBlastertalk 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support any color that is W3C AAA-compliant and works with dark mode. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no problem with the current colour. The first proposal caf0f2 strikes me as a bit grubby, less pleasing on the eye. LightCyan is cleaner than that, on all of my devices, and I could live with it. However, it has this disadvantage: because dark mode has no effect on browser pages (or project/category pages in the Wikipedia app), I occasionally invert the colours on my tablet (triple-click on iPads), and in that presentation LightCyan, Azure and Lavender are almost indistinguishable from white, whereas the current bff9fc and caf0f2 are clearly distinct. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So would PaleTurquoise be closer to what you would be looking for? - jc37 01:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, PaleTurquoise is dark enough that it shows up (as lighter) on an inverted-colour iPad. But in normal viewing, I find that blue links stand out less clearly against it than they the do against the current bff9fc. I would therefore prefer to stay put. Of course, if there's a majority in favour of change, I'll live with it; it's not a big deal to me. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see it a named colour rather than merely a value. But otherwise, as long as it meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility (and your concerns), than I'm pretty much fine any-which-way. - jc37 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra, this could probably do for some reconsideration with the upcoming dark mode changes. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, dark mode. Dark mode will affect the colours of all the XfD boxes, so what I'd suggest, if possible, is to have the colours be hsla (with transparency) rather than RGB so that it just tints the background. Cremastra (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For contrast compliance against the Vector 2022 link color: Only the current color, Azure and LightCyan reach AA compliance. I think LightCyan looks nicest in light mode, and it stands out against other XfD headers, but not as well as the current color. However, as a dark-mode editor, I find current to stand out best in dark mode.
This is an example of AfD top (F3F9FF)
This is an example of AfD top (F2F4FD, vector2022)
This is an example of FfD top (F3F9FF)
This is an example of TfD top (E3F9DF)
This is an example of RfD top (FFEEDD)
This is an example of RfD top (FDF2D5, vector2022)
This is an example of MfD top (E3D2FB)
This is an example of RM top (EEFFEE)
This is an example of RM top (E0F2EB, vector2022)
This is an example of DRV top (F2DFCE)
This is an example of MRV top (E2FFE2)
This is an example of CfD top (BFF9FC)
This is an example of CfD top (F0FFFF, proposed)
This is an example of CfD top (E0FFFF, proposed)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monogeneric animal family

[edit]

Mohouidae is a monogeneric animal family. We have Category:Mohouidae for the family and Category:Mohoua for the sole genus. We would not have separate articles for the family and the genus, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Monotypic taxa, so I don't know why we have two categories. I can't find guidance specifically for categorising monotypic taxa. Are these candidates for merging, and would it be an up merge to the family or a down merge to the genus (as we do for articles)? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer was apparently yes, upmerge – per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 28#Category:Mohouidae. Nurg (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new CFDS criteria: Monotypic taxa

[edit]

After observing a large volume of CfD's for monotypic taxa, I've concluded that we will need a new speedy merge criterion for monotypic taxa ot the next higher level. This would apply to any taxon which has one subtaxon at the next lower level (including fossil species) — for example, a genus with one species like Pseudoryzomys; but not those with one extant and some fossil species, such as Acinonyx. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy/large section

[edit]

Large nominations in the speedy section make it harder to notice other nominations. It might be better if we split large nominations into a /large sections so other nominations aren't lost in the mix. Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting a category

[edit]

This may be obvious, but how do we handle splitting category A into new or existing categories B and C? I am interested in starting a CfD discussion to split Category:Neo-Norman architecture into Category:Romanesque Revival architecture and Category:French provincial architecture (and potentially Category:Regionalist architecture in France). Something like a category disambiguation page might be useful, if not possible. I want to understand the options before starting discussions here and at Commons. I have explained the detail here, but I am asking about the mechanics rather than the architectural terms. TSventon (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon, I'm not sure I understand your confusion. For nominating the category, Twinkle can handle splits for CfD - you would detail in the nomination which members go into which categories. For implementing it, it's as simple as moving the category members to their new categories and delete (or dabify) the nominated category. Am I misunderstanding what you're asking? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: I want to know what a dabified category looks like, so I can decide whether it is appropriate in this case. TSventon (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, see Special:RandomInCategory/Category:Disambiguation categories e.g. Category:Apple. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I looked for that information and for some reason didn't find it. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass National Football League categories

[edit]

Any way to move all categories (and subcats) of Category:National Football League (don't move this one as the parent cat) to NFL without me manually tagging each one as there's close to 100? There is consensus at WT:NFL. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93, you can use User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD for mass tagging categories. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wahroonga category

[edit]

Hi! I recently got a few pages of suburbs around Wahroonga changed. Schestos made the RM, but it was effectively me, as I asked Schestos for help. The category should moved from Category: Wahroonga, New South Wales to Category:Wahroonga. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, I believe standard procedure is to list the category at WP:CFDS (per WP:C2D). — Qwerfjkltalk 08:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Servite et contribuere, either manually, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here, or using Twinkle. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QwerfjklI read the instructions. Do I basically just type it in on the talk page? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Servite et contribuere, not quite. If you're unsure, I recommend you use Twinkle, as I said. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl I meant to say I read the instructions. I don’t know how to use
twinkle unfortunately Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Servite et contribuere, that's what the page Twinkle is for. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"All old discussions" page broken?

[edit]

@Pppery: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions seems to be broken. I'm only seeing the text "This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot. #invoke:XfD old". -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's exceeding the WP:PEIS limit because there are too many discussions. This will fix itself when some are closed. You can use the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions instead in the mean time. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, that makes sense. If we already have the other list that works more reliably, maybe we should just decommission this one and save the server load and navigational complexity? -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it convenient to read all of the discussion in one page rather than having to click a link in the past, so I think both have their uses. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Would it be possible to have it link to the backup page in case it's down, with an explanation as to why? (It doesn't need to be hidden when the page is working if it just says at the bottom of the page something like "If this page is empty, too many discussions are open....") -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced investing time making an already undesirable state (over a 100 discussions pending closure, some dating back two months or more) slightly less undesirable is worth it, but if you want to do it go ahead I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If too many discussions are open, we'd want to facilitate more people closing discussions, and smoother navigation helps just a little bit, so I've gone ahead and done that. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I closed a bunch of discussions, and I now suspect the size overflow is being caused not by an unusual number of open discussions, but by the fact that several are mass nominations with hundreds or thousands of categories listed. -- Beland (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien del Priore - problem

[edit]

The category Category:Video games scored by Fabian Del Priore should be removed. This is because "Fabien Del Priore" is a non-notable person, previously deleted from Wikipedia (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Del_Priore). Please help me get this incoherent category removed. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FD1C:68CD:8DB8:EAC0 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inmates of Silivri Prison

[edit]

Despite the fact that the "Silivri Prison" is still considered the de facto name for this penitentiary by the general public, Turkish Ministry of Justice changed its name to Marmara Prison in 2022.[1] I think the category needs to be renamed to "Inmates of Marmara Prison" with an updated description to reflect this change. BactrianCamelCase (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Adalet Bakanlığı açıkladı: Silivri Cezaevi'nin ismi değişti" [Ministry of Justice announced: Silivri Prison's name has changed]. cumhuriyet.com.tr (in Turkish). Retrieved 2025-04-03.

Word usage for creatures

[edit]

Ok, so we've been doing this piecemeal, and I find that I've even been contradicting myself in usage (lol). I think we need to standardize these to make this simpler and clearer, and honestly, so we don't constantly have repeat nominations of these.

So here's my suggestion on how to stadardize usage of: fiction/fictional; folklore/folkloric; legend/legendary; myth/mythology/mythological.

a.) fiction

These creatures are elements within a work of fiction.

The adjective "fictional" describes the creature, not the work. So the article rabbit would not be in Category:Fictional creatures in animation. But Bugs Bunny might. (Or more likely, in a subcat.)

So, do not use "creatures in fiction". That could be any creature, not just fictional (not real) creatures. That usage of "...in fiction" should typically only be used with an adjective, such as genres, like "fantasy fiction", or crime fiction".

Usage: fictional [adjective] creatures [in [work of fiction]/[type of fiction]/folklore/mythology] example: Category:fictional sea creatures in The Little Mermaid

To illustrate the difference, a category called: Category:Sea creatures in The Little Mermaid could include articles such as flounder or crab, while the example above might instead have Sebastian (The Little Mermaid).

b.) folklore

folklore describes the work type (instead of fiction). It does not describe the creature. Usage: [adjective] creatures in [adjective] folklore example: Category:Sea creatures in African folklore

"folkloric" should never be used.

c.) legend

legend could describe a story, but for our usage all stories of legend are folklore, and so all such creatures should be merged in that direction (per overlapcat). Usage is therefore that of b, above.

That said, the word legendary is a useful adjective to differentiate/disambiguate legendary creatures from fictional ones or from real ones.

Usage: Legendary [adjective] creatures [in [work of fiction]/[type of fiction]/folklore/mythology]

example: Category: Legendary sea creatures in Greek mythology

And just like "fictional" (noted above), "legendary" describes the creature, not the story.

d.) mythology We need to be careful about mythology, because in some sources it is synonymous with legend/folklore, and in some sources, it is synonymous with religion. Also, in general it is a group of (semi-related) stories, rather than a stand-alone story.

And not all creatures of folklore/legend are creatures from mythology. For example, Natural History (Pliny) lists creatures that could be considered folklore/legendary, but would not be considered mythological. This is an important distiction to remember.

So for all of these reasons, for usage of "mythology", we need to be strict. The source needs to state that the creature in question is from an established mythology, not merely "from myth" or legend or folklore of the region. We shouldn't use "myth", as that is ambiguous as to whether it means legend or part of a mythology.

I welome everyone's thoughts on all of this. - jc37 12:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template useage bouncing off XFDcloser

[edit]

Not sure if this is more appropritate here or at the tool talk page, but I've noticed that nominations using the {{lc}} template for the category name in them are producing an error when attempting to relist or close them using XFDcloser, where it's claiming Edit is somehow part of the nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger, I would say XFDCloser's talk page would be more appropriate. But I wouldn't count on it getting fixed any time soon. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=1300832205"