Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10
Archived talk: 1 — 2

Moved from main page (Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland)

The following comments were placed on the main page, with regards to the category moves discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14#Fooish battles --.3E Battles in Fooland.

CATEGORICALLY AGAINST! the left-side categories are by participants, the right ones by disputable territorial criteria. They are in no way equivalent. What's wrong with your logic? Mikkalai 05:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
You may do what you want with the rest of the world, but Russian battles and Soviet battles are deleted only over my dead body. Mikkalai 05:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, I find it totally wrong to see no indication where is the debate. I am not going to look thru years of pages of archived debates to see whether there was indeed a serious reason. Mikkalai 05:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

User also struck out some of the to-do items, and reversed much of the cleanup done, renamingCategory:Japanese battles to Category:Battles in Japan. --Azkar 05:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Kbdank71 interpreted the discussion wrongly. There was no consensus to move and the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14#Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland appears to be based on the misconception that Category:English battles was meant for battles in England. But that's not right; the category was for battles in which England was one of the participants.
It seems to me that this episode illustrates a weakness with the CFD process. It's often only the CFD regulars who actually comment on the proposals, not the editors who actually work in the area concerned. (Compare with VFD, where every editor with the page on their watchlist gets a notification of the page's nomination.) In the case of CFD, editors only notice that a vote has taken place when the pages start to be moved. You can see above that User:Mikkalai is against that move, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles#New Battle categories that User:LordAmeth is against the move, and at User talk:Kbdank71#Battles in... that User:Adam Bishop is against the move. These are all editors who work in this area who knew nothing until the move started to be made.
But in this case I think it's User:Kbdank71 who showed poor judgement in interpreting Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14#Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland as evidence of consensus for the move. Please move the articles back, and take more care next time. Gdr 11:24, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
On the archived discussion on CFD, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14, there are 5 votes in favour, and 1 against the move. I think Kbdank71 interpreted this correctly as a consensus in favor. The other opinions you mention don't count for this vote, so I can't see a reason to move the articles back; at least, not without a revote. Eugene van der Pijll 12:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Kbdank71 interpreted it incorrectly. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. The vote against, even in minority, presented a very seriuos reason why the move was inadmissible. Kbdank71 simply ignored the argument and went on counting. Deleting categories is far more destructive act, because it is very labor consuming to revert the deletion. I think this case shows very clearly that the policy must be seriously updated. Mikkalai 16:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Vote/revote will not prevent me from usage the old categories. If you will persist in deleting them I will report disrupting work of wikipedia despite serious reasons presented by multiple people. Wikipedia is not democracy. You cannot vote to kill information and my work. I advise all to learn this very basic rule very thoroughly. Mikkalai 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
That seems rather needlessly bureaucratic to me. The goal of polls on pages like WP:CFD is surely to try to determine if there's a consensus among editors, not to be an end in themselves. If the poll fails to properly determine consensus because there's a population of editors who weren't represented, that's a flaw in the poll, not the fault of the editors who had better things to do with their limited time than to watch WP:CFD. Still, if you must have another "vote", then be my guest; see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 23#Battles in... Gdr 12:30, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Bottom line is this: Regardless of what you think, there was a consensus here to delete these categories. There was no subterfuge, there was no sneaking around. If you want to renominate them for a revote, please feel free. If a consensus determines that they should be kept, they'll be kept. I'll wait a day or two for you to remonimate them before continuing the moves. --Kbdank71 14:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't give a damn about the consensus of people who fail to see the difference between the words "in" and "of". Old categories in which I work will be kept because I say so. Loss of information cannot be justified by any consensus. Period. What's unclear here? You made an error in judgement and don't try to justify it by the fact that foor more people made the same error. Learn to admit errors. Useful experience. Mikkalai 16:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel the need to be so hostile about this. It's obvious that we disagree regarding consensus. Would you like to stick around and help archive at CfD? --Kbdank71 17:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It is obvious that we disagree about common sense. Forget consensuss. Learn that wikipedia is not democracy. Also learn that it is admin's judgement to decide where consensus is. It is not just counting votes. Especially in such an undervisited page, whose influence is way beyond being comparable with possible impact of decisions made.
Archiving: I've been doing my share of various garbage collection at various places for quite some time, including this page. And this is not the first time I am rising the concern about fragility of this page. But somehow people feel more concerned about deletion of harmless vanity pages than of elements of data structure. I voiced at village pump once again that the problem is with the policy here. I will be coming to help here. Mikkalai 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstand my criticism. I'm not saying there was subterfuge or sneaking. I'm saying that the CFD process was flawed because it failed to consult editors in the area affected, and because it presumes the existence of a consensus when there is none. The evidence of the flaw is that three editors expressed surprise and dismay at finding out that articles they worked on were to be re-categorized (and in several cases, re-categorized wholly wrongly) as the result of a supposed "consensus". Gdr 14:13, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
I'm amazed that such a debate could go on. Isn't the need for two categories in such cases obvious to a glaring degree? Already someone has tried to move Battle of Singapore, which was clearly not in Japan, to Category:Battles in Japan.
What is even more amazing is Category:Battles in the United Kingdom, which is entirely full of battles which did not take place in the UK! Grant65 (Talk) 14:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, also Category:Battles in Athens (none of which took place in Athens), Category:Battles in Genoa (none of which took place in Genoa), Category:Battles in Franks (where exactly is Franks?). Did anyone even bother to look at these categories before moving the articles? Gdr 14:50, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Um, how did this happen? Are wikipedians really this stupid? Battles of Athens, Battles of the United Kingdom, I could cope with. But battles in them? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

-I am currently in the process of reverting articles back to their previous categories, starting with the move from Category:Battles in Japan to Category:Japanese battles. Any help would be most appreciated! ... Is this the sort of thing we could request on Speedy renaming? hm. I'm gonna go request that. Less work than doing it all myself. LordAmeth 23:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure if I like the idea of having "Battles in Foo" as a subcategory of "Fooish battles". Why bother? But in any case, what do you all think about changing "Fooish battles" to "Battles of Fooland"? As someone pointed out at Categories for deletion#Category:Danish_economy.2C_Category:Indian_economy.2C_and_Category:Romanian_economy, it makes better sense, especially once we get into things like Battles of Monaco, which would be Monacoan battles? or Monaguese battles? Please let me know what you think before I go request Speedy Renaming. LordAmeth 23:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with "Battles of Fooland". --Kbdank71 13:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although technically, that's not a "revert". I believe that would require a new vote (make sure you get a _clear_ consensus, too). --Kbdank71 13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This of course ignores the fact that Monaco has never fought a battle, and if any are discovered, they'll fit happily into the categoty "Monegasque battles". A bit awkward is some cases, but in general, "Fooish battles" sounds a lot better than "Battles of Fooland". What about Basque battles? Frankish battles? Are we to violate uniformity further with "Battles of the Basques" and "Battles of the Franks"? Albrecht July 7, 2005 15:37 (UTC)
My issue with the 'Fooish battles' model is two-fold. One, not everyone knows the particular spellings of the adjective forms of some of these smaller nations. 'Monagasque Battles' may be an appropriate label, but it would be just about impossible for me to find or recognize without being knowledgable about Monagasque matters. Two, some things don't really have a good adjective form, and would, I think, sound better under the 'Battles of..' model. For example, 'Battles of the United Kingdom' to distinguish from 'English battles', and 'Battles of the Confederate States of America' as opposed to the ambiguous 'Confederate Battles' (there have been other confederacies throughout history other than the CSA) or the awkward 'Confederate American battles'. All told, if there seems to be strong agreement to your suggestion, I'll have no problem going along with it. I just can't stand the disorganized state the categories are in now. LordAmeth 7 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
Alright, I'd like to get moving on this, so what say we hold a vote here and now? LordAmeth 19:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The actual categories for Battles are awful. I think that there is a need for standardization there. I propose :

  • "Battles in ######1" for Battles which took place IN the actual country #####1.
  • "Battles of ######2" for Battles in which the country/city/people ######2 participate.~

I am currently trying to reverse many things because the actual classification just doesn't make sense at all. If you want to discuss that or to help, come on my talk page. Poppypetty 08:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


Vote for renaming to Category:Battles of Fooland

I propose we rename all the subcategories of Category:Battles by country to the form 'Battles of Fooland' rather than 'Fooish battles' or 'Battles in Fooland'. Who's with me? (Please only vote once, and use the convention of beginning your post with "Agree", "Disagree", "Comment" or "Note" in bold.)
Agree. Yes, I am agreeing with myself. Just wanted to put that there so it counts as a bolded vote towards the consensus. LordAmeth 19:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree. I wouldn't have a problem with Battles of Fooland. Should this go into CfD proper? --Kbdank71 03:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak disagree. I think we should return to "Fooish battles" with all haste; why complicate matters with another needless change? "Battles of" makes me uncomfortable grammatically. However, as previously remarked, anything is better than "Battles in Fooland". If it looks like others are leaning towards an agreement I'll drop this vote. As long as this ridiculous blunder is fixed. Albrecht July 7, 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Agree. Pticly when we come to Battles of the Confederate States of America, for example (though I guess they'll all be in a category of Battles of the American Civil War or some such). — OwenBlacker 01:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Stub categories for deletion

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion (WP:SFD) - A process for the deletion of stub templates and stub categories in one go set up by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. This is intended to run alongside CFD and TFD, specifically relating to category:thingy-stubs, and template:thingy-stub. If there are no objections, it will do a test run real soon now. Please comment there, not here. Radiant_* 11:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Numerical prefixes

I came here for "the proposal, justification, and discussion" of Category:Numerical prefixes' deletion, but it is not here. Where is it now? Hyacinth 21:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stub types for deletion

WP:SFD is now up and running. I'm adding a template box to the tfd and cfd pages to keep people here informed of what's going on over there (whether this continues or not will mainly depend on how well sfd runs). Grutness...wha? 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: If a stub-category is nominated here, should we move it to SFD and de-list it? --Kbdank71 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be best. Because the WP:WSS people are the most knowledgeable about stub cats, and that way they don't have to browse through dozens of other cats nominated. Radiant_>|< 08:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, it makes more sense to keep all the similar items together in one place. I think it would make for (hm - what's a good phrase...?) more procedural clarity if all the stub related deletion votes were kept together. Grutness...wha? 10:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confusion between Delete and Rename

This page is being used for about as many renames as for deletions. E.g. when Notable roller coasters was posted, I thought it was up for deletion and SimonP's statement was just a question. I'd like to propose two changes to avoid such misunderstandings:

1. Rename this page to something that expresses both. How about "Categories for Discussion"? That way the acronym would still fit.
2. The person who posts an entry should write their wish just like a normal vote, as a bullet point in the usual syntax beginning with a bold tag.
— Sebastian (talk) 17:43, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
3. All entries start with a bold tag that clarifies what people want, rather than just "Agree", which may be misleading.
— Sebastian (talk) 18:33, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) (Inserted after Kbdank's reply)

I'm not sure the name needs to be changed. It does state under "How to Use this Page": If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name. And technically, even a rename is a new create and delete. As for signing the nomination like everyone else, I'm on the fence. As someone who archives things, I take into account the nomination as a vote. Plus, it might get confusing as we'll invariably have people who didn't see the new guidelines, forget to vote, and get upset because their voice wasn't heard. But on the other hand, it would help to avoid misunderstandings. --Kbdank71 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Name: I don't feel strongly about the name. I just thought it might calm down some of the emotions (that you often were the target of) if people didn't get the first impression that "their" categories are up for deletion.
Policy: I don't think it has to be a relentlessly hard policy. The votes will still be counted by a sensitive human, such as you. I don't think you'd have much trouble allowing bot for a transition period. If you had trouble, anyone would, and we would need to ask for clarification anyway. — Sebastian (talk) 18:33, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Name: ok, that's a good point. Although I think we could name it "Sunshine and Candy" and they'd still get upset. Policy: another good point. Really, if they didn't vote, I'd see that immediately. Agree: That one I do agree with. Several times, the nomination has changed slightly, and with all of the Agree's floating around, it's not always clear as to what they wanted. --Kbdank71 18:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've reworded Template:Cfd in an attempt to make it less upsetting to people. Please take a look. Radiant_>|< 09:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I saw that the other day. I think that's a great change. --Kbdank71 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Excellent change. On a slightly different but related topic, is there a template that alerts people that it is now open season for re-categorizing articles? There have been complaints here and there that I've seen about "incorrect categorization by non-experts"; I don't think most of those complaints hold water, but I give them some credence. Providing a period post-vote closure for people who have actually contributed to the articles to re-categorize them if the category is given the nod for deletion would help to prevent some panic (less looting, fewer mobs running through the streets, that sort of thing). If this has already been addressed and either a) taken into account or b) rejected as a non-issue, please let me know here. Thanks. Courtland July 4, 2005 19:17 (UTC)



Would someone PLEASE HELP with this ongoing battle?

I am Romath. Someone illegally placed a 'Romath' page in Wikipedia, posting lies concerning me. When I came across this quite by accident, I tried to CORRECT the lies, and removed my real name. My reason for removing my real name is that I have a serious problem with a stalker in real life, and I try my best to avoid spreadingh it on line. I do not even use my full real name on my iown webiste for that reason.

Someone keeps on adding it right back in ..... I have been battling do\\foir DAYS on end trying to re-edit and keep it off. No good ----

I tried re-naming the thing to my Rihannsu name ... and only got falsely accused of trying to hide my identity.

I tried blanking the page, and even signed why---- next thing, someone named 'evil monkey' blocked me so I could no longer edit or correct it. I could not even access anyone to ASK for help, but had to go on another computer..

ALL I ASK IS PLEASE REMOVE THE ROMATH PAGE, and you or wikipedia will not be hearing anything from me ever again.
PLEASE, will you REMOVE THE ROMATH PAGE.

Thanks

Romath.

To verify, my email is romath@romath.com

Category:Causes célèbres

Why was this listed for undeletion before it was even deleted? --Kbdank71 16:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The deadline for the debate had passed but the action had not yet been taken. Remember deleting a category isn't like deleting an article: you have to remove the categorisation from all the articles in it. It therefore makes undeleting a removed category almost impossible unless someone can remember which articles were in it, which means that an undeletion debate must be started without delay. Also, there was no really good reason for deleting the category, the deletion debate was nonexistent and most of the voters admitted their ignorance as to what the category meant. David | Talk 10:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:cfru on TFD

{{cfru}} is a fork of {{cfr}} that includes an extra parameter for setting which CFD entry it should link to. The creator's evident intent was to provide a means of dealing with umbrella renames where multiple categories were being addressed in a single CFD entry. As a solution to a problem of sorts, it strikes me as potentially useful. However, it has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:cfru on the grounds it is presently unused and that forks of instruction templates are often a bad thing.

Since this template more or less "belongs" to this community, your input would be useful at the TFD. Dragons flight 14:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Moved from CfD

  • Category:Soviet history -> Category:History of the Soviet Union
    • Objection here. This category covers not only the Soviet Union, which starts in 1922, but the Sovet period of Russia 1917-1922 as well. This is exactly what it is: Soviet history. And I strongly object . mikka (t) 18:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So what do you suggest, moving everything to History of Foo except for Soviet History? And what about History of the Soviet Union? And why does Soviet redirect to Soviet Union? What is the problem with trying to become more consistent? --Kbdank71 18:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And why wouldn't all of Russia's history, including any and all Soviet Periods, fall under Category:History of Russia? Please remember, we are not deleting any articles, which would presumably describe the Histories of the Soviet Union and Russia, this is simply renaming a category. As such, are people really going to be confused with this change? Is anyone going to say, "Woah!! This is the History of the Soviet Union. That's not what I want, I want Russian history between 1917 and 1922. I wonder where that is?" I understand where you're coming from, but are we making a mountain out of a molehill here? --Kbdank71 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a proper place. mikka (t) 19:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I copied your comments and objection above straight from "To be emptied or moved" on WP:CFD. But since you've decided to renominate it, ok, see the new discussion on June 20. --Kbdank71 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proto-languages and proposed languages

What a pity I missed the fact that the eminently useful Category:Proto-languages was listed here; it got deleted and its content absorbed by Category:Proposed languages on a 3:2 vote (which doesn't sound like rough consensus to me). As far as I've been able to determine, the term proposed language is a Wikipedia neologism that's not used in historical linguistics. I can't discern any difference between proposed language and the well-established term proto-language, and have recommended that the former be merged with the latter. By the same token Category:Proposed languages should be renamed Category:Proto-languages. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Two-thirds or greater majorities are required consensus for deletion of anything; however, merging is not deletion, so I'd say KBdank has it right. Anyway, your suggestion sounds reasonable; please put on a {{cfr}} tag. Radiant_>|< 07:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, cfr is reasonable. There are still a couple of open questions in the discussion. — Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Category:National economies

Is there a reason why this cat has not been renamed to Category:Economy by country, as agreed in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_8#Category:National_economies, but to Category:Economy by nation? — Sebastian (talk) 19:26, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Hm, that's strange, I thought 'by country' was the standard. Let's see, Kbdank71 made that, I'm sure he had a good reason? Radiant_>|< 08:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, that is strange. Apparently I went by the cfr notice on the original category, which was indeed a rename to "Economy by nation". Unfortunately for me, I'm the one who put that cfr notice up, since there wasn't one when it was listed on CfD. I don't really know why that happened. I accept responsibility for the error(s). I'll fix it today. --Kbdank71 13:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous question re links to cats in headlines

I just noticed in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_5#Category:Professional_associations_and_Category:Professional_organizations that the headline changed because one of the categories was renamed as a result of the process. This way, the discussion doesn't make sense anymore in the archive. This could be solved by either replacing such links with plain text before a category gets renamed, or by not using links in the headline at all. — Sebastian (talk) 19:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Woah, what changed? I read through the discussion in question, and it made sense to me. --Kbdank71 19:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless you're talking about how one of the links is red? But then, the majority of the headings will be red. Even the renames, which isn't a rename, but a create new and delete. --Kbdank71 19:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, maybe what changed was my memory  ;-] I thought I had come up with the name "Professional associations", and the category had been renamed afterwards.
  • However, regardless of this bad example: What would happen with a link to Category:X if that category got renamed to Category:Y? Wouldn't all such links be changed to Category:Y? This would result in texts like: "Rename Category:Y to Category:Y", which would not make sense. — Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    • Not as far as I know. It would stay as "Rename Category:X to Category:Y", just "Category:X" would be a redlink, and Y would be blue. --Kbdank71 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Silly me! Of course not: It doesn't do that for normal links either. I'll strike out my statements. — Sebastian (talk) 14:53, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Student Organizations Categories

Hi, I realize that I am late in showing up here, but I only noticed that "Category:Student fraternities" was up for deletion [1] when it was changed on an article page I was watching after it was deleted . It has since been merged into "Category:United States student societies". I wasn't watching the cat page and was thus unaware of the vote, but I would like to object on the following grounds:

  1. Many of the organizations now listed in "Category:United States student societies" are currently international, with chapters in Canada and sometimes Mexico or abroad (I know Sigma Phi Delta has a chapter in Bangalore, India). The new name is therefore innacurate, even if most of them were originally founded in the U.S.
  2. Since merging, the categorization scheme does not distinguish between fraternities and sororities. This makes it exponentially less useful.

I recognize that the old scheme had its problems, but the new one is far worse. I also know that this vote is closed. How should I (we) reopen it so that we can figure out a better scheme for categorizing these societies? -Lommer | talk 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I should also disclose that I am a Canadian member of Delta Kappa Epsilon, which means that I'm probably biased in this matter. -Lommer | talk 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Concerning your first point, would it be a problem to create "Canadian student societies", "Indian student societies", etc, and if a certain one has chapters in more than the US, add it accordingly? As for your second point, is there a need to distinguish between the two? --Kbdank71 19:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose the Canadian student societies, etc. can work though it's a bit more labour-intensive. As for the fraternity-sorority difference, I think it is important to distinguish between the two. Beyond the obvious gender differences, there are some pretty deeply-rooted differences between interfraternal and panhellenic organizations govern themselves, and I know a lot of people find the classification important (there are some "female fraternities", but these are usually classed as sororities because they are in all but name). I suppose the logical extension of this is to subdivide the student society categories into fraternities and sororites, with assorted secret societies remaining in the parent country category. My only hesitation about this though is that its becoming an overly complex categorization structure with a lot of links (these are a real pain when the wiki is slow). If others feel this is the best solution, then I suppose I could go with it though. -Lommer | talk 20:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's also important to give the categories easy-to-understand names..."fraternity" and "sorority" might not be the best terms. Certainly you have the female fraternities, as previously mentioned, but also co-ed societies, and probably some where certain chapters are one way and others are another. Like, say, Alpha Delta Phi, which is both a fraternity and a co-ed society. "Student societies" is rather vague...perhaps "Greek" should be in the name somewhere? There are plenty of non-Greek organizations that are not listed (and presumably are not supposed to be listed) in this category. Though I like the word "student" to disambiguate from mystical societies. Another alternative would be to sort by affiliation with inter-organizational organization. -- Beland 19:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem is that the naming reflects an American systemic bias. The word "Greek" means "from Greece" in most contexts, rather than "having a name consisting of Greek letters". The word "Fraternity" roughly corresponds to "male or coed student society" in the US, but has connotations of Freemasons or cults in other parts of the world. E.g. those mystical societies, they should plainly be in another category. You already stated that the difference between "sorority" and "female fraternity" is unclear. It would be moreso to people who've never been to a US college. Wikipedia generally doesn't make a gender bias; then why should we make the distinction between a fraternity and a sorority? Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:26 (UTC)
    • Not all fraternities - organizations that normally have names comprised of Greek letters - have names comprised of Greek letters. I am an alumnus of Triangle fraternity, and I am aware of Acacia and Farm House as other fraternities opting not to use Greek letters. I think the term Student societies would work well. Maybe it should be Category:Student societies in Some Country. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 5 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

Category:Ayyavazhi Related Topics

A new user has (almost single-handedly) created a whole category of articles on a newish religion called Ayyavazhi. He's made a number of the usual mistakes, and the latest is this now-well-populated category. I'm not sure what it should be moved to — could anyone help? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow. If that's one user, they've been productive. According to the Worship_centers_of_Ayyavazhi article, there are 7000 'worship centers' in Southern India. Since I'm not planning on going there anytime soon, I would assume the author has done his/her homework. I don't know if it's real, but it seems like they've done a good job with it. I say keep it where it is. Maybe it will be useful to somebody. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 5 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

Speedy Renaming

I propose that the following be added to the Speedy Renaming criteria:

  • Any category that includes an abbreviation (such as "U.S."); the words should instead be spelled out. This does not apply if the abbreviation has become the more common term, such as "DJ".

Note that this conforms with Wikipedia:Categorization#General naming conventions.

Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

  • As much as I agree with that, I think it would be a bad idea, as there are people who feel that, regardless of conventions, some things are better abbreviated. There was a comment as such in a recent nomination. --Kbdank71 13:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That is true, and it raises an interesting matter. We have style guides and conventions for a reason - consistency is good, and it makes the Wiki look more professional and more comprehensive. However, it happens quite frequently that a group of editors ignores convention or style and sets up their own style for a certain subject area. On little-frequented pages like TFD and CFD, it takes only two or three editors that prefer their own style to enforce it, since they can often prevent a consensus to rename, delete or reword cats or tls that do not follow the wider guidelines. Now I'm far from convinced that this is actually a problem nor that it should be enforced, but it's an interesting property of the way Wikipedia works and it wouldn't be bad to give it some thought. Radiant_>|< 07:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposal. Speedy renaming should be reserved for obvious choices, not subjective preferences, even if they are current conventions. Maurreen 05:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Proposal withdrawn for now, but I'll discuss with the WikiProject Categories some time and we might ask for some RFC later this year. Radiant_>|< 09:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Creating a new day's subpage

Twice, I've wanted to nominate categories for deletion or renaming before anybody else had done so for that day. The first time, I tried to make a section for the new day, and did it incorrectly. The second time, I simply put my proposals in the previous day's subpage. Both times, someone else corrected what I had done. In order to avoid making any more work for anyone else, I would like to know how to create a CfD subpage for a new day. Could someone please enlighten me? Thanks, NatusRoma 04:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You shouldn't have to worry about that. Is the bot not taking care of that any longer? --Kbdank71 13:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Per Special:Contributions/NekoDaemon, the last time the bot ran was June 26 - and see the note at the top of User_talk:AllyUnion. After the bot is fixed, the WP:CFD page should perhaps be changed to mention that the bot generally adds the day entries. It might also be good to change the timing on the bot so that it adds the day entry earlier. It seems to run at about midnight GMT, by which time it is already the next day for half the world. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Until the bot is upgraded, how might one go about creating new daily subpages? NatusRoma 01:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Could you just make a redlink to it somewhere (e.g. sandbox), click on it and edit it to create the page and then transclude it manually? -Splash 01:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Or, perhaps, edit some other day, change the date in the URL displayed by your browser, then hit return (not "save" or "preview"), and then enter a date header for the new page (perhaps copied from some other date's page). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

US v United States

We really need to do something project-wise about this, if for no other reason but consistency. On Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 7, many people voted to keep the U.S. Categories and totally ignored the U.S. television networks, which made it through with a consensus of rename to United States. --Kbdank71 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • As above. This probably requires RFC. Radiant_>|< 11:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What does a vote of keep mean?

I see that there was a vote of keep on April 20 for Category:Schools established in the 1700s, Category:Schools established in the 1800s and Category:Schools established in the 1900s and yet they appear to have been deleted. Is there another process that I'm not aware of? Vegaswikian 17:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody bothered to make sure that that renaming was done properly, despite being told about the problems, I think it should be nominated again for renaming back to Category:Schools established in the xx00s from Category:Schools established in the xxth century.
It should be up to the proponents of these moves to make sure that they are done right. In this case, the time periods were changed, but there was just a wholesale dump of everything from one old category into one new category, without any checking to see if it was put in the proper category. For example, one old category covered the years 1800 through 1899 (not the 1800 through 1809 some disingenuously argued in proposing the change). But some of them should be in the new 1701—1800 category, and some of them should be in the new 1801—1900 category, which should also have some from the old Category:Schools established in the 1900s--but all of them appear to have been thrown into the 20th century instead.
What is the proper procedure for reraising this issue? I say that this wasn't really a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia, if the people proposing the change won't make sure that it is done properly.
Is there a time limit before I should bring this up again? Obviously, two months should be sufficient, as it was last time. Can it be done in a shorter time? Or what else can we do to get someone to go through and check all the entries? I have found some that are wrong by searching for particular years; I have made no attempt to look at each of the entries to see if it is done right, and have no intention of doing so. I say it would be easier just to change the names back to the old names. Gene Nygaard 03:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
With a certain amount of trepidation, I will offer to go through the lot of them and make sure they are appropriately cat'd. That won't be an on-the-spot job, of course. Anybody is of course welcome to join in. I would suggest that, if it were brought up again most people would just cite the previous CfD and nothing much would get changed. Am I right in supposing that the problem is in the one-year overlap? So that foundation years, (for example):
  • 1801—1900 are to be 19th Century but that some of those founded in 1800 (and thus in the 18th Century) have been left in the new 19th Century cat?-Splash 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What is a typo?

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 27 for the Category:Former students of St Catharine's College listing. I moved it from speedy because I felt that adding "Cambridge" to the category name did not fall under the speedy guidelines. User:Dbiv disagreed, stating it was a typo. Considering the speedy guidelines give as a typo example, Typo fixes (e.g. Brdiges -> Bridges), I'd like to get opinion as to what constitutes a typo. Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Essentially, a word is not a typographical error; those are errors of letters. That's the best phrasing I can think of right now, but it can probably be improved. Maurreen 16:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree too. A typo is a slip-of-the-keys, not something you would have to wilfully insert. That said, adding Cambridge to the cat name is a no-brainer in this case, but it should still go to CfD. -Splash 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I would class a typo as including an obvious mistake, something that isn't a question of policy and doesn't add or detract anything from the substance. In this case, every single other Cambridge college has a Category called "Former students of X College, Cambridge" except Catz which has "Former students of St Catharine's College". It's so obviously a one-off mistake and so obviously not a big issue so why bother to have a long debate on whether to change it? Just wastes everyone's time, doesn't it? David | Talk 16:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It wastes no time of those that don't participate. It's far from unheard of for a CfD to get no votes other than the nomination (and, perhaps, one other) and to consequently be approved. Sometimes an innocuous looking change raises a wider issue, so only the narrowest of cases go to speedy. Adding a word to the title is not in the examples given. I could easily stir up a debate here, for example: rename all such cats to Category:Foo College of the University of Cambridge. Thus we have the CfD procedure. -Splash 16:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that in this particular case, it was most likely a mistake and a no-brainer, but the speedy criteria do not handle adding words, no matter how obvious it is. And Splash is correct. Someone may come up with a better name which wouldn't happen if it was speedied. --Kbdank71 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What is a No Consensus?

The above discussion ended with a no consensus. There were, at my count, 3 votes to rename, 4 votes to listify. Disregarding this, User:Dbiv went ahead and renamed the category anyway, and refused to correct this User_talk:Dbiv#Former_Students_CFD. Should this just be reverted? --Kbdank71 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I do believe that per WP:BOLD, we do not actually need a consensus to rename (or listify, for that matter) anything. The only reason why CFD handles renames is that it's relatively difficult to perform if you don't have a bot around. Seems to me in this case there were no objections to the renaming. Radiant_>|< 15:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • regarding no need for consensus to rename: taken at face-value, that statement is an open invitation to edit warring; in other words things would end up at "requests for arbitration" rather than here. I don't think that is what you intended to project as an opinion, no? Courtland 16:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, let me paraphrase myself... renaming should not be done against consensus. But neither does it require a poll to be taken beforehand; that's what we have a 'move' button for. It is quite possible that a move (like any other edit) will turn out to be disputed. In that case, it is prudent to seek consensus, rather than edit war. Radiant_>|< 08:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Categories do not have a move button. A rename requires an admin to delete the old category, so we don't have an empty category sitting around, like we do now, which can't be deleted because there was no consensus to do so. --Kbdank71 13:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The other reason renames come to CfD is to provide for proper deletion of the now-empty category. There is a thing about deleting empty cats 30 days after they were emptied (in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies), but it's hard to tell when that happened — especially 30 days after the event! So, strictly, the now-empty Catz category should come back to CfD. I seem to recall saying I'd make an umbrella CfR to rename these cats (or to delete them after listifying). Would it upset if I were to do immediately? -Splash 15:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Without trespassing too heavily on WP:NPA, in response to Kbdank71's claim that I don't know what 'consensus' means I should say that I do know what 'common sense' is. The category in question was the subject of an obvious mistake in that it was created as 'Former students of St Catharine's College' when it should have been 'Former students of St Catharine's College, Cambridge'. I possibly made a mistake in ever submitting it to CFD and should just have redone it myself - if I had, I bet no-one would have objected. Anyone raising the question of whether there should be such categories is raising a different issue which should be considered at a different time. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and nor indeed is it a jurisprudential system: outcome is more important than process. David | Talk 16:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delay?

A number of cats were listed in the main section by User:Agentsoo today that were speedy candidates. That's not really a problem, but the admin that speedied them didn't wait the two days that Wikipedia:Category renaming requests. On the other hand, the speedy rename section says "proceed without delay". We should abolish one or the other instruction. -Splash 16:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I believe it was done correctly. A speedy delete needs 2 days, a speedy rename can be done without delay. Um, except for Motorcycle clubs, that is. That one should have waited 2 days. --Kbdank71 17:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That's true; I didn't read the page carefully enough. However, I see no justification for removing Motorcycle clubs before some period of delay. The speedy delte policy asks for 24 hours, shortly after implying that being empty isn't among the speediables, unless on the request of the creator. -Splash 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Right you are. I think the 2 day thing is just for categories with no opposition, which in this case there is, so yeah, it should have stayed a full week. --Kbdank71 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, since it was empty I guess there's no real problem. If someone wants it back, it can always be recreated. Should we leave a gentle message with the admin in question to help prevent it happening in future? Maybe no need; I don't see them around CfD much. -Splash 17:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Probably no need at this point. --Kbdank71 17:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Category:Motorcycle clubs was not deleted. It was listed as Category:Motorcycle club, which doesn't exist. --Kbdank71 18:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion instructions

I am trying to list the category Women rulers for deletion. I have followed the instructions to the best of my ability but it hasn't quite worked. In particular I'm not sure where to put it when editing this page. Can anyone help? PatGallacher 10:37, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

I suspect that you are editing the entire page instead of just editing the section for today. To edit today's section, click on "edit" to the right of the section. -- Samuel Wantman 10:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I have looked at this and I don't see where it says "edit" to the right of the section. I suspect the possibility that this only appears on some computers but not others. I suggest changing the procedure for proposing categories for deletion to the same procedure for proposing pages for deletion, which does not have the same problems. PatGallacher 21:57, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
In your preferences, you need to go to "Editing" and make sure that "Enable section editing via [edit] links is turned on" (the first option). -Splash 22:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am now trying to add UK Co-operative Party politicians, and I still can't get it to work properly. Can somebody help me? PatGallacher 00:26, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Help categories

I'm thinking that our stub categories could be complemented by "Help" categories. That is, we could have something like "Foo articles that need help" or "... need special help", if they need cleanup or wikification or are disputed, etc.

That way these articles (and possibly categories) might be more likely to get the attention of people who care more and know more about the given subject.

The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Maurreen (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I've copied this here from a current CfD debate, as it's of much wider significance:

  • Kbdank71 closed the CfD debate (two voted for delete, no-one for anything else) as no consensus, which is why I reproposed it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    Sigh. And Sherool and DrBat thought it would be better to rename it. You yourself appeared to be on the fence between deleting and renaming. If you're going to make me out to be the bad guy on this, at least know what you're talking about. Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to have a drink with Tony Sidaway. --Kbdank71 16:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    There were two votes, the rest were comments. The only votes were for deletion. When someone writes "Comment" they don't mean their views to be included in the closure process. If you think that they do, then we need to change the instructions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    Consensus is built by discussion, not voting. You've been around long enough to know that. But assuming for a moment you're right, there was one delete vote from Jmabel, and your nomination, which wasn't a vote at all, but when you say right off the bat, the real problem is that this is very misleadingly titled, that's a nomination to rename, not delete. You've got your re-nom, just let it go. --Kbdank71 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    Well, first, my nomination included no renaming option. more importantly, though, I'm worried by the position you've adopted (presumably not only in this case). In VfDs, at least, comments are not taken into account when assessing the consensus, because they indicate that the person involved doesn't want to be counted (perhaps because they're not yet sure of their opinion, and are simply considering the issues — that's certainly my usual reason. If you are going to count their musings, explicitly labelled as non-votes, as if they were meant, then we need to make this clear in the instructions. I think that it's a bad idea, though, as it might well have the efect of stifling discussion. I've copied this to Talk, as that seems to be the best place for it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    Fine. You win. From this point on, I, as the main (and only) closer of CFD discussions, will not read one scrap of actual discussion. I will only count votes of "delete", "keep", "merge", etc. Muse away all you want, all that will count is your vote. --Kbdank71 18:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    Let's not be ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a democracy. siafu 19:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is simply this: the discussion involves certain codes for the main position that we want to be taken into account; if we write delete or keep, for example, then we want that to be taken as our "vote", and we add reasoning to explain ourselves. The reasoning is important, but so is the position towards the proposal that we're explicitly adopting. If we write comment, however, then we don't want what we say to be taken into account in the final result — we're merely participating in the process of discussion, in the hope of making up our minds (or of persuading others). Kbdank71 seems to want to treat the discussion as a simple product, not a process, to the point that he or she is prepared to override the participants' stated preference. When I precede my remarks by "comment", I'm explicitly saying "don't count what I say here when closing this proposal"; if the closer isn't going to honour that request, then participants need to be told, so that they can alter their behaviour accordingly.

I don't know why Kbdank71 has flown off the handle, and treated this as a fight instead of a discussion, nor why he or she insists on adopting one of two extremes instead of thinking about the middle ground. I do think, however, that this is an important point, in so far as it could significantly affect (and in fact ahs done) the outcomes of CfD discussions, and needs to be discussed properly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Mel, I think about the middle ground, every day. Consensus building is based on discussion, not vote counting. That has never changed since I've been here. If you want to change the instructions because sometimes Kbdank71 will take the discussion into account when determining consensus, then please do so. I don't think someone who states "Comment. Perhaps it would be better to rename the category." is going to gripe that I took that to mean rename. I don't think someone who states "That said a "better" (though not very "snappy") name might be..." is going to gripe either. I could be wrong, though. Tell you what, ask those two users if they mind me interpreting what they wrote to mean rename. If they mind, I'll delete the category right now. I don't want to fight about this. You seem to be the only one griping. I've explained my reasoning, and you still think I'm wrong. I've said I'll take a binary approach to this (count votes, ignore comments), which you seem to want. I'm still wrong. Do you want me to stop closing CfD discussions? I can do that too. Have to warn you, if you're thinking of doing it: it's a thankless job that just gives you grief when someone disagrees with you. Keep plenty of advil on hand. --Kbdank71 01:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I specifically use comment just to signify a discussion, not to say it's not a vote. Sometimes comments are just passed up, and by placing a bold header, just catches the eye of those interested, many of times, I have cast a vote in my comments. I also use comment if I have already voted, as to signify I am not voting twice. However, I also make suggestions that extend my vote in these comments; ie.. Voted keep; later comment - keep but possible merge. I mainly do this to agree with other votes and/or comments that were cast after mine, more of an iff than a complete change in vote. I think Kbdank71 does an exemplary job in Cfd, despite the few complaints. I think this is best described in Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am sure this has been brought up, but fealt it needed another mention. If other users/admins feel that he is not doing a good job, they should consider helping out from time to time, and not just mentioning the mistakes, but complimenting the overall good work. ∞Who?¿? 03:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Help! California categories

The California and Southern California WikiProjects are working to improve the organization and naming of the various categories under Category:California. Unfortunately, there really isn't a whole lot of guidance that I could find for Wikipedia categories., Especially for naming, all I could find was Wikipedia:Categorization#General naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). I know, however, that between this WikiProject and WP:CFD there has developed a number of naming and organization conventions that do not seem to be documented anywhere. I would appreciate it if someone could look at the current organization of the California categories (located at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/categories) and then make some recommendations about reorganizing and renaming the categories.

What I see as one of the biggest problems are all the "Los Angeles" categories. One problem is that there are some overlapping or duplicate categories. The other problem is that most of the categories are just "Los Angeles" and do not make it clear if they are for the city, county, or metropolitan area. I think that all of those categories need to be renamed to indicate which Los Angeles they are referring to . BlankVerse ∅ 01:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Ddespie@san.rr.com

Warning: Ddespie@san.rr.com (talk · contribs) has been putting {{cfr}} templates on a bunch of categories, but hasn't put nominated any of them for renaming at CFD. The user is also recategorizing articles without seeking consensus. BlankVerse ∅ 04:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying current speedy renaming

This project page says speedy renames "may be processed and removed from this list without delay." But Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies says "Deletion and de-listed may occur after 2 days if there are no objections. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made." Are there any objections to changing this project page to make it in line with the policy page? Maurreen (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do. siafu 15:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. The CFD policy page is incorrect - unlike what it says, the regular WP:CSD criteria apply, and for instance a patently nonsensical cat (e.g. Category:sfhdsjk can and should be deleted without delay). That includes anything used only by, and nominated by, the original author (kind of a no-brainer).
  • Categories that are misspelled or miscapitalized should be renamed rather than deleted, per speedy renaming. Of course, they can be deleted (or redirected) if a cat by the correct name already exists.
  • When the speedy-renaming policy was originally proposed, it had no requirement for a two-day delay. However, since we seem to be expanding the speedy renaming criteria anyway, I have no objection to adding it. However, we should get a bit more feedback on that, so let's wait a couple of days before changing it. Radiant_>|< 08:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
"Interesting?" Maurreen (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. In the literal sense of the word. I was wondering where the contradiction came from, and how it related to other such pages. For the lack of a better word, I find such matters interesting. Radiant_>|< 13:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
OK, well, here's some feedback after someone pointed out to me this rather significant change in policy: I've been following the old policy (speedy rename request move on site with a bot) for yonks, including doing so since Maureen change the policy on the 19th of August (which I didn't notice, because, well, I don't need to read the blurb around the working part of a page after I've read it the first time, do I? ;-)). Sorry if I annoyed or upset anyone by doing this; I didn't intentionally break policy.
Waiting 2 days for a "speedy" renaming is silly, IMO. The whole point about speedy changes is that they should be absolutely uncontraversial, so making sure no-one is upset is unnecessary. If they were opposed, well, they can be easily moved back (for those of us with a bot), and easily listed in other cases - after discussion in a CfR or whatever, of course.
How about we go back to the old style quick-fire form?
James F. (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[Moved from Speedy sub-page]

Working on these. James F. (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
When you say working on, do you mean you are renaming them or doing something else with them? They should be listed here for 2 days before renaming, and then they will be moved to the cleanup area if no objections are posted. ∞Who?¿? 02:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
O.....kay. That's new. I've been coming here and carrying out the speedy moves as requested for many months; the page now says to wait two days (which is a rather laughable thing when calling it "speedy"). Who decided on that? I've stopped my bot, FWIW, though it had already done two of the categories.
James F. (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure, I guess it was to allow an object time. Personally I think they should be speedy as you said. Although I've had to remove some of them that weren't necessarily speedy renames. ∞Who?¿? 03:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

CFD section edits broken

The [edit] link for sections is broken. The Discussions edit links point off to Log locations. And the section which pops up to edit does not match what is displayed. Someone transclude something? (SEWilco 16:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

  • It happens if someone has added one or more section abowe the one you wanted to edit after you loaded the page. If you check the URL you see that section edits are numbered. If you load the page, spend some time reading it and then click on a section edit link you will open for example section #5 for editing. However if a new section have appeared since you loaded the page then what looks like section #5 for you might actually now be section #6. That's why new sections should preferably be added at the bottom of active pages like this. And yes, each day's log is transcluded into the main page, so you never actually edit the CfD page itself, but the page for the relevant day. --Sherool 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I did reload the WP:CFD page after this happened, but edits still pointed to the wrong place. I assume there is a caching issue. (SEWilco 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedians categories

We need to have a chat about the Wikipedians categories, and when to keep them and when to nominate them for deletion. Here's my first proposal: Only nominate for deletion when they cause some problem. (And what constitutes a problem, you ask? I'm not gonna say here - I hope that this is one of the issues that will be resolved with discussion.) -Seth Mahoney 01:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the problem they cause is an unnecessary waste of 1)server resources and 2)CfD time. There is certainly no benefit to the encyclopedia in having them, and I don't see any benefit derived by the users who put themselves in the cats. The exception would be the Babel-related cats since multiple languages can be very useful to identify at times. -Splash 01:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think they do have a benefit - they allow users with related interests to group together easily. An easy answer to clogging CfD time is just to not delete them. Finally, server issues - I don't know a whole lot about the resource demands categories place on servers, but it does seem like it would be minimal. -Seth Mahoney 03:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is what WikiProjects are for. -Splash 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am for some and not others. I think they should be moved to a separate namespace. I think they are good for the community, as Wikimedia is both a community and each of the projects, ie encyclopedia. No, they do not serve any encyclopedic purpose, just boosts moral with Wikipedians. Sort of like all of the associations that some of us say we are members of, difference being, they are all held on Meta, if the Wikipedian cats could be stored elsewhere, it would probably work. ∞Who?¿? 02:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think they do server an encyclopedic purpose, by proxy - they allow editors with related interests to pool their talents easily. -Seth Mahoney 03:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not turn them into lists in wikipedia space, like Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/members or WP:LA ? This seems like an example of categories not being the right tool for the job. As lists, to "join" you'd have to edit both your user page (to link to the list) and the list. An entire extra edit! But in return, you'd get to list your snazzy signature and perhaps a droll quip instead of just your plain old user name. We could of course create a "lazy wikipedians" list that only has a link to its "what links here" (or a "really lazy wikipedians" list that would forever be a red link, its members being too lazy to even create the page with the logically superfluous link to its "what links here"). Of course, to make this an enforceable rule at CFD we'd have to get consensus. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because lists are relatively inaccessible, and categories are easy to spot and add users to. -Seth Mahoney 03:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate? I don't see how lists are any less accessible than categories. The link to a list on a user page isn't in a location constrained by the software (like the list of categories a page is in). Is this what you're referring to? This can be viewed as either a plus or a minus depending on your point of view (one person might like the membership listings to be in a standard place, someone else might like to put such a list in a cute little box in the upper right hand corner of their user page). Lists are arguably slightly less convenient because you have to edit both the referring page and the list but, in all seriousness, an auto-subscribe list could be set up whose members are displayed by a link to "what links here" rather than an explicit list. To add yourself to such a list, all you'd need to do is edit your user page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Oh that sounds interesting. Would we be allowed to make the list page a redirect to Special:Whatlinkshere? -Splash 04:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seemsdoesn't seem to work (see user:Rick Block/sandbox), but I was actually thinking about a page that would have something about the list and then a link to whatlinkshere rather than a manually edited list of members. Actually, eitherthis way would work (and, "really lazy wikipedians", with a red link, would also actually work - you click the link and then click "what links here"). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
There's something funny about redirects in user space generally though. E.g. if I make my user page a redirect to somewhere, the redirect doesn't work, like your sandbox doesn't. We'd need to momentarily try it on a 'real' page to be sure I think (or ask a dev). I'm afraid of getting blocked if I do it in the real sandbox. -Splash 06:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I just tried it in the real sandbox, and it doesn't work there either. I suspect this is the same issue that causes redirects to categories to not work (you can redirect a category to a page, but not vice versa). I also tried transcluding special:whatlinkshere and that doesn't work either (results in a link to the whatlinkshere page). So, I think what all this means is an auto-subscribe list is possible but displaying the membership requires an extra click (one to get to the list page, and another one to show the members). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It would appear that {{:category:whatever}} and #REDIRECT[[:Category:Whatever]] just take the text description at the top of the category page, without displaying the list of category items itself. BTDT. Didn't do what I wanted. An old village dump post suggested m:DynamicPageList as a possible option, but that's a non-standard extension which would need to be installed to MediaWiki in order to work its magic. Another option is pywikibot. Yes, categories do have their advantages; there is much duplication with existing lists, particularly in language-type user and wikiproject lists. It's more difficult to keep track of how many "ambidexterous Canadian wikipedians willing to translate Pig Latin to Joual" lists are out there than to spot duplicate categories.--carlb 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While I was initially in favor of deleting all of these cats that came before us, I'm finding myself more and more on the fence regarding this issue. The latest spate brought up a resonable point noting that the lists that these cats are meant to replace had become quite long indeed, which can cause exceptionally slow loading and unwieldy-ness for those with slower connections. Wikipedia is not a social club, but by the same token these groupings do help build the community and foster wikilove, so they are not entirely without value. It would be very helpful if someone knowledgeable and capable were able to provide some real information on the server load these create, or would create either as cats or lists, to determine how much of a big deal that concern actually is. siafu 02:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Category pages are created by the apache server from a database query each time they're viewed, so they cannot be cached by the front end squid servers. This makes any category several orders of magnitude more expensive than an equivalent list. If the list page is giant (over 50KB perhaps?) , it can (should) be subdivided into separate pages. WP:LA's list of >500 administrators is a little bigger than 27KB. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that is a point I guess, but have it ever been indicated that categories are a problem? I mean they "only" fetch a list of up to 200 indexed links, it's naturaly more work than just serving a cached list, but it's still not a LOT of work for a server. What little I could find on the subject indicates that it's the search feature that cause the most problems, acounting for up to 70% of the server load. Edits are naturaly also very heavy, each link in the article must be verified and such (though granted edits are not that frequent compaed to page views). With some improvement (a category must "know" if new articles have been adde since someone last viewed it) categories should be cache-able too, but I guess that's a moot point if they are currently not. --Sherool 11:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The fetch limit of 200 was added a while ago because large categories were an actual problem. In a galactic sense, I don't think categories of users could possibly be used frequently enough to be a significant source of load (whether they're actually categories or not). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The point is really that some categories of Wikipedians are useful (e.g. by skill, or by country of origin) while others are not (e.g. by hair color). "They allow editors with related interests to pool their talents easily." is a reasonable argument, and as a guideline would allow for deletion of all userspace categories that are pointless or downright silly. As a rule of thumb, I believe that if we would prefer not to have a certain category for articles, then we should not have it for users either. E.g. no "extraterrestrial Wikipedians", "Wikipedians who like chocolate", who are "learning French", "own a laptop", etc. Radiant_>|< 09:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well I agree that blatantly "silly" categories could be deleted. Some people have a broader definition of silly than others though, some might find "Wikipedians interested in pottery" a silly category, while others would find it useful to enlist help on new pottery related articles and so on. Others might be "useless" but still interesting for some (like "my" "Wikipedians by web browser" and such, although it's naturaly not a huge deal for me). People should be allowed to have a little bit of "fun" though IMHO, that's why we have thingks like BJAODN or the "Chess club" who serve no useful purpose (other than possebly relieving Wikistress). --Sherool 11:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline cases could be listified. I'm all in favor of having fun, but I would prefer if people had fun in any namespace other than Categories and Templates. I think the criterion of "would we have a mainspace category for the subject" is reasonable; we have category for pottery artists (although maybe the cat should be broader), but not for people interested in web browsers. Radiant_>|< 15:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well as long as none of these cats incorporate any main namespace stuff or link with any "regular" categories normal viewers will never see them anyway so no biggy IMHO. Although something like a "usercategory:" namespace might have been useful for this kind of things to avoid any possible confution. Not sure how one would go about proposing something like that though. --Sherool 17:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
What I'm envisioning here are guidelines for when a category should be even nominated for deletion. So any silly, borderline, or otherwise odd cases would be nominatible (others, like, say, Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy could be immediately removed from CfD intact, or arguments against nomination could be made based on whatever rules we set up here). We can, of course, branch out from there, but I'd really like something along the lines of guidelines for even nominating wikipedians categories for deletion come out of this conversation (even if what we decide is "no guidelines"). -Seth Mahoney 21:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note also that some of these categories were created specifically because some Wikipedians had filed their userpages in article space categories. That, as far as I'm concerned, is always inappropriate; I don't really see any harm in having categories for Wikipedians who want to express a group affiliation or topic of interest. I do like the "would we have a mainspace category for the subject" criterion, however. Bearcat 17:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The categories for Wikipedians have different objective than categories for articles. CfD should concentrate only on article categories (because of lack of people and time). Categories for Wikipedians should be either (a) completely free to create and intentionally ignored on CfD or (b) handled on separate vote for deletion or (c) banned once for all. If they are allowed to penetrate CfD less people will be willing to take serious look here. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a fan of either A or B above. -Seth Mahoney 02:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that wikipedia-space lists can be used in a nearly identical fashion, I don't see a compelling reason to allow categories to be used in this way. We could have a naming convention that I think would have to be enforced at CfD, but since there's currently only a single category namespace I think the simplest approach is simply to ban use of categories for groupings of users. It's confusing enough to have categories with wikipedia-space articles. Please note that I'm NOT saying we shouldn't allow groups of users. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

In the same way that VfD has jurisdiction over all articles whether in nullspace of Wikipedia: space, so CfD should have jurisdiction over all categories. Similarly, any page can be taken to VfD (e.g. TfD was recently) so any cat should be able to go to CfD without let or hindrance. Bad-faith nominations will simply get a handful of keep votes and no harm will be done. I don't understand why we would want to reach a decision of "no guidelines" — that is the situation we already have! Imho, the simplest solution is simply to abolish all Wikipedian categories. -Splash 02:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree that some should be kept, and the silly ones to be listified. Also I see that some agree that it would be better served in a separate namespace, as this would decrease server load, as it could be stored on a separate server. I think Cfd should have domain over all category issues, but even now we sub-divide this depending on the type of category (stub cats, and any other project dealing with a common type of article). I do not think we should get rid of all of them though, they are a good community tool, even if some users do not know about them. As far as worrying about silly ones being created, well that happens with every aspect of Wikipedia, why knock the Wikipedian categories for it. (Note this is for everyone, not just Splash, just didn't feel like subdividing the conversation further). ∞Who?¿? 04:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
CfD is frequented by handful of people and if they may find it too silly to waste time with Category:Wikipedians by handedness equivalents on daily basis. Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually what I meant, was we deal with tons of silly articles/cats/templates everyday, these cats aren't much different when it comes to the silly ones. I think if its too much of a nuasance for any particular user, just don't vote on that topic. But their existence has nothing to do with all the other things we tolerate everyday, or shouldn't. ∞Who?¿? 18:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe this is a viable solution... go to Wikipedia:User categorization (or WP:CENT, I suppose) and, through discussion, establish a guideline for which kinds of user categories are desirable, and which are not. Then advertise that guideline, so that CFD regulars will take it into account when voting. I would have no objection to this guideline calling for speedy unlisting, renaming or deletion in certain clear-cut cases, but obviously that would require thorough discussion. Radiant_>|< 10:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy vs regular deletes

I've recently (last two days) been working through a bunch of empty categories, putting a bunch up for delete (on the page for the 23rd). I then reread the criteria for Speedy, and simply being Empty is sufficient. So I've since put a bunch more up for speedy deletion, and the first group of such have since been deleted (2nd group hasn't been handled, at this point).

But watching the pages I put up for regular deletion, several have prompted interesting debates about their existence. I have no personal strong preference, other than to clean things up, so if a proper use for them exists, and the categories being placed for deletion spurs action to make them useful, great. I'm also in no hurry about the deletion of most of these pages. So that said, I'm inclined to stop using the speedy deletes for most of them (all but 100% obvious capitalization errors or offensive ones), and resume tossing them up for regular deletion. Even a couple of pages I was certain were misspellings have turned out to be debatable as to whether they, or the other spelling, is the proper one. (Whichever way is decided, the debate is for the good, IMHO)

So anyway, I'm tossing this up here for response. Mainly, does anyone have any problem with my tossing empty categories up for regular deletion, when technically they qualify for speedy? That way, they at least get more eyes on them, and any other special cases can be caught. TexasAndroid 20:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, basically, the relationship between WP:CSD and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies needs harmonising. The latter imposes odd rules like "can't delete an empty cat for 30 days after a single objection" whilst we are allowed to speedy an empty cat after 24 hours of emptiness — without any particular requirement that it sit somewhere visible for 24 hours. And how do you tell how long a cat has been empty for anyway, apart from the nominator's timestamp — how do you know it hasn't been repopulated, then quietly depopulated by an unhappy nominator? Empty cats are routinely added to the 7-day-queue and, as you say, some good debates ensue, although periodically one particular admin comes along and speedies a few under the 24-hour rule. Which I suppose all suggests you can do it either way, but the propensity to generate discussion should be respected. And we should work out the rules for speedying categories better. There is some related discussion of speedy renaming at Wikipedia talk:Category titles, if you fancy a look. -Splash 20:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That part was rather unclear; I've fixed it up. In general, empty categories can be speedily deleted. However, if for whatever reason an empty category appears on CFD and it is decided to be kept, then it should not be speedily deleted. Kinda makes sense, no? For instance, if I create Category:Zimbabwean composers, people could argue that it fits in the existing category scheme and should not be speedied. If, after 30 days, nobody's added to it that would probably indicate that there aren't any Zimbabwean composers, so it can then be speedied. Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Washington, District of Columbia consensus

Doesn't look to me like "no consensus" is correct for Washington, D.C. related categories.

  • Oppose: 3
  • Reverse merge: 4 (absorb Washington, D.C. into categories of standard naming)
  • Merge: 2

Want help doing the reverse merge? (SEWilco 16:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

That is a plurality, not a consensus. There was no consensus nor even a majority in one direction. Jonathunder 16:39, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
And was the "delete" on Category:New York City, New York based on delete:4 and reverse merge:3 done on an acceptable plurality, or was that a consensus? (SEWilco 16:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC))
Is counting the votes all that matters? Or does reading the discussion, referring to the structure of other, related categories, referring to the main article's title, noting the pattern of voting following the comments and observing your own list of examples of major cities that don't follow the CITY,STATE pattern matter for anything? Consensus is not the same as mere vote counting. You can always propose the CfD again. -Splash 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I see. I merely referred to the other CITY, STATE categories, when I should have included a list of the hundreds of categories. (SEWilco 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Actually, it's a two-thirds majority in favor of merging. That's good enough for consensus, especially if you consider the fact that merging isn't deletion. Radiant_>|< 08:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Which merge is it consensus for? and this is a category: Merging is deletion. (I'm in favor of a merge myself, but I shouldn't be counted.) Septentrionalis 18:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Merging is only deletion in a bureaucratic sense (because it involves clikcing the 'delete' button, but even that can be avoided if a category redirect is used). Merging is never deletion in a logical sense, because no information is lost. There is two-thirds support for merge, and the most popular name by a two-to-one margin is the "Reverse merge". If we insisted on bureaucracy, we'd never get anything done :) Radiant_>|< 08:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copying what I posted to my own talk page in response to SEWilco: 3 oppose-4 reverse-2 merge is no consensus under any rules. And as Splash already pointed out, consensus is not mere vote counting, and if you want, you can always renominate it. --Kbdank71 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Volcanoes of Hawaii

OK, I don't get it. I emptied Category:Hawaiian volcanoes and moved everything into Category:Volcanoes of Hawaii, including the subcats.

The new category page appears blue when I view it from any "parent" categories (or on this page), but red when I view it from any of the articles that are children of it. What gives? I switched browsers, so I don't think it's a caching issue. What did I do wrong? -- Nandesuka 00:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

They're blue for me - this might have been a caching issue on the wikipedia side of things. Try looking at them again (and reload in your browser). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Still red for me -- look at the category at the bottom of Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, for example. Nandesuka 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks blue to me. siafu 03:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Great. I'll just assume it's something local to me, then. Nandesuka 03:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Defunct musical groups

Category:Defunct musical groups has been listed as a deleteagain, could someone verify this is correct, depopulate it and delete it? Thanks. --fvw* 05:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? --fvw* 23:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me find the debate anywhere wich is odd, but it has been deleted before under a slightly different name. --Sherool 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Found a link to the vote on the category's talk pake, seems it was before we started using sub-pages so it was just deleted from the main CFD page once it was done, the relevant history link is here. --Sherool 23:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for digging in the history, and thanks to CanisRufus/RedWolf for decatting the articles. --fvw* 00:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blindsided: Nixon "enemies"

User:Cberlet and I both seem to have been blindsided by the deletion of Category:Original Nixon "enemies" and probably of related categories. There was no notice of a CFD discussion placed on Talk:Nixon's Enemies List, which would have been an obvious place to contact interested parties, and the archives for the last three months seem not to show an archived debate, so we don't even know the rationale for the removal. Can someone direct us to an archive of the debate? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

There discussion seems to have been here. - SimonP 19:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is perfect example of the situation for which there should be both a list and a category (including only the individual articles and the list). I'm sorry I missed it, and I would support a recreation. Septentrionalis 14:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. User:Cberlet seems to think so as well. Please ping me if this issue is reopened. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Most-relevant article

I am spurred to bring this up because of the discussion above. I expect that many people don't keep categories on their watchlists; they only find out a about a cat deletion after the fact.

I'd like to suggest placing a note on the talk page of most-closely related article when categories are proposed for deletion. This would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. Maurreen (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Would you care to draw up a template for that purpose? Radiant_>|< 07:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I just made template:cfd-article. I welcome your improvements or suggestions. This is only my second template, and the first appears headed for deletion. Maurreen (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative on this. There was a substantial discussion here earlier, in which I think everyone agreed that better informaiton of a CfD was needed, but nothing came of it. This is a solid step. Now we just need to make it a standard operating procedure. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming

Speedy renaming is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming. Maurreen (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Question on speedy renaming criteria

Does correcting a misspelled category name qualify for speedy renaming? I just noticed a category for Villareal CF players (a Spanish football (soccer) club). However, the correct name for the club (and its home town) is Villarreal. I'm an admin, so I could do the rename, but I don't know if it meets the criteria. — Dale Arnett 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

They're normally listed here. Maurreen (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"See this page's entry on the category for deletion page...JUST KIDDING"

While I appreciate the need to archive off old discussions, it's a bit annoying that these links end up breaking. In particular, when emptying a category that there was consensus to delete or rename, I like to read the discussion to make sure I know what it is that I'm touching. When those discussions aren't on the main page anymore, I have to start binary-searching the archives by each day in order to find the archived vote (unless there's some better way to do this, that I'm not aware of. "Reading WP:CFD every day and memorizing the conversations" doesn't count.)

To make matters worse, the indices on the archive page aren't in sync. To take a current example, the discussion on Category:Marvel Universe Characters can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 25 but is not in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates/2005 August index; I had to go through August day by day (thankfully, backwards) until I found it.

One simple step that might help would be to put a link to the actual discussion archive page in the "To be emptied or moved" section, next to the article being deleted. An even better solution would be for the link in the {{cfd}} templates to have the appropriate link, instead. But I'd settle for the former.

Am I the only person who has this problem? Nandesuka 05:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are looking for a debate on a particular category just go to it's page (deleter or not) and click "What links there", you'll find a link to the appropriate CFD page there. That said coding the link to point directly at the appropriate page (like is beeing done on VDF would probably not hurt, although it might be technically difficult seeing as the link is dynamicaly generated and contain a date, if you add {{subst:date}} or whatever to the template I'm guessing it will just get replaced in the template itself and result in all links pointing to the same day). --Sherool 13:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the cfd template needs to be updated to reflect the transinclude implementation. One option is to add a parameter which specifies the date. Yes, not an ideal solution but at least the link would work on the category page. RedWolf 17:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Or, we could just go with transcluded subpages for each CfD. It means editing them one at a time, but provides permanently funcitoning links (and cuts down on edit conflicts for those of us who do our notvoting in batches). -Splash 17:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Closing debates carefully

I just ran across two problems after doing some cleanup here with Pearle. 1.) Category:Environment was supposed to have been merged into two different categories, not just dumped into one. 2.) Category:Simpsons_actors was supposed to have been converted into a list, not just deleted. In both cases, the instructions in the "Cleanup overhead" section did not mention these complexities. Fortunately, both omissions were caught and are being repaired. Please be careful when you are closing discussions to note such things, so our bots don't upset a dozen people when they do the wrong thing. Thanks! Beland 04:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If I'm not mistaken, there was already a list for Simpsons actors, which was the reason the cat was deleted the first time (found it: List_of_celebrities_on_The_Simpsons. The environment thing I suppose was my fault, after re-reading the nomination. If I can make a quick suggestion: Don't say "most articles can go here, the rest there". There is no way people can make an informed decision without knowing exactly what is being suggested. Can Reinyday list the articles that are supposed to go to Ecology? --Kbdank71 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

NekoDaemon and the template categoryredirect

Due to a request made by Radiant!, I have wrote a script that moves the articles and categories in the incorrect category to the correct one that is using the categoryredirect. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for categories

A proposal for conventions for category naming, consolidating existing conventions mostly from WP:CG and including new conventions and rules pertaining to "by country" categories, is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Please read it and discuss on its talk page. The intent is for this new page to be the official policy for category naming (subpage of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Category duplications

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Updating_the_section_on_category_duplications. There is a proposal to update the categorization pollicy at Wikipedia:Categorization. The proposal would remove the following section:

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

and replace it with this:

Normally, an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. Duplication is warranted when the set of subcategories are incomplete, when an article is the topic article for a category, and in a few special cases when it just makes common sense. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories

Please discuss here. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The scope of VfU

Since this is a deletion process and, as such, is within scope to VfU, those that participate here might be interested in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. This is considering expanding the scope of VfU to include review of all decisions on deletion process whether the result was delete or notdelete. -Splashtalk 22:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename them?

I wonder if categories in Category:History images shouldn't be renamed from 'Country history/historical images' into 'History/historical images related to country'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There fine as they are. The alternative is longer but not clearer in my opinion. Or maybe even less clear - a picture of George III is related to the United States, but it is not an "American historical image". Osomec 11:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

CFR tagging for renaming by-country categories

The naming conventions and some new rules pertaining to "by country" category naming (and renaming) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) are now official policy (by consensus). user:Who has suggested all categories that may be affected by a change to a "by country" naming convention must be tagged with an apprpriate {{cfr}} tag for due notice. It's not obvious to me that this is necessary in these cases and the rules at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) are currently silent on this. I propose cfr-tagging not be required in these cases, and we clarify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and WP:CFD accordingly. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I only requested that standard Cfd entries be tagged. I was making the comment before I realized you listed them as speedy. I do not believe that requires a tag. ∞Who?¿? 16:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
With further thought however, Rick Block had mentioned large scale renames. On the small scale, speedy renames has been fine w/o the Cfr tag. I am unsure how users would react if they disagree with just one of the hundreds that would be renamed in a group. It may merit a discussion on pro's and con's. ∞Who?¿? 16:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
If users disagree, they can propose the whole structure for renaming after it has been realigned to conform to naming conventions. I know that is not the most efficient method, but I think it is best. For example, many of the "Buildings and structures in Foo" categories were recently renamed to conform to conventions. I think the whole lot should be renamed to "Structures in Foo" because buildings are structures and shorter names are preferable, but I feel that should be brought up as a separate CFR, so I didn't opose the renames that were occuring just to conform to standards. -- Reinyday, 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There are two cases to consider - an individual category rename listed as a speedy to create alignment with an existing by-category convention, and a change to a by-country naming convention resulting in a "group" renaming that may affect hundreds of individual categories. IMO, speedies should never require CFR tagging. If we require CFR tagging for every category affected by a change to a by-country convention we'll effectively add a lot of inertia to this process. For example, the innocuous looking "airports of" to "airports in" change affects 126 categories. Tagging them all would take perhaps 30 or 40 mintues - if the consensus is "no rename" then there's another 30 or 40 minutes somebody will need to spend untagging them. The flip side of this is that change without notice is a bad thing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that you should not have to tag every category when proposing a broad change to align to current naming conventions. I feel this is a wasteful effort. I will mention that the {{cfru}} template does exist for this purpose. -- Reinyday, 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem with not tagging all cats involved with a {{cfru}}, users complain that there was not due notice. This has happened several times in the past, so now rather than fixing a deleted category, Kbdank71 and my self requested that all categories be tagged. I am not speaking of the speedy renames, just the standard ones. Also, I can easily add {{cfd}} tags with my bot, if we so decided to tag the large speedy rename umbrella noms discussed above. ∞Who?¿? 09:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's pretty much what I'm saying. If we list them on the speedy section, then I don't feel they need a tag. However, even with the current speedy section there is a two day wait period for objections, not to the policy, but maybe one's interpretation to it. After that point they will be "speedy" renamed to fit naming conventions. ∞Who?¿? 00:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that if these are being renamed because of the category naming conventions discussion, they probably don't need the tag, but then again, they also don't need a discussion. But if they are being listed on CfD proper, and we are having a discussion on the merits of renaming, and the possibility exists that it will not happen, then it is unfair not to let people know about it via cfd tag. As it was said, there are bots that can tag and untag categories quickly. --Kbdank71 14:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's pretty much what I'm saying. If we list them on the speedy section, then I don't feel they need a tag. However, even with the current speedy section there is a two day wait period for objections, not to the policy, but maybe one's interpretation to it. After that point they will be "speedy" renamed to fit naming conventions. ∞Who?¿? 00:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly feel that it is essential to tag in every case. I have raised objections to the speedy renaming "policy", which contrary to repeated assertions was not declared official policy before I began to dispute it - go back and have a look at what the page actually said. There are only so many of these to deal with, and we should not cut back the consultative process. Rick Block made an error with the proposed name of the very first category which was nominated for speedy renaming on a by-country basis. CalJW 22:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I added the two by country subcategories of category:archaeological sites by country to the speedy rename list after Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was officially marked as policy by this edit, but before the consequent changes to other related pages (including the list of speedy criteria on WP:CFD) were updated. I understand you disagree with speedying in these cases. Fine. Let's talk about it. But would you please stop with the "it's not policy" line of argument. It IS policy. Now that it is policy, we're going to be having dozens (if not hundreds) of these renames to enforce alignment with the naming conventions. There may be articles in some of these categories that won't belong when the category is renamed. I don't see this as a particularly big issue. You apparently disagree. IMO the point of a "renaming" CFD discussion is not to review the contents of the category, but to reach a community consensus regarding the proposed name. Since we have policy-based naming conventions, in these cases the community really has no choice but to agree so I see little to no point in using the normal CFD renaming procedure. If you would like to review what articles are in each of these categories as they're renamed you're perfectly welcome to do so. They won't be renamed secretly. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody else (besides myself or CalJW) weigh in about this? We seem to be at somewhat of an impasse regarding the policy status of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and its (currently deleted) clause specifying use of CFD speedy for mis-alignments with its by-country conventions. Thanks -- Rick Block (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the rush? Some of them have been around for over a year, so it doesn't matter much if they then take 7 days to get renamed rather than 2. It's better to have a proper look at each one. There are sometimes good reasons for exceptions, eg the unfortunately named "physicians" categories I have just nominated for renaming. They are standard, but I think they are wrong. Under your proposal category:English doctors would be eligible for speedy renaming and might become Category:English physicians before anyone spotted the mistake. Osomec 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't because it hasn't been established that doctors→physicians or vice-versa is a speedy criterion. If we were seeking a speedy criterion for it, then it would need to be carefully evaluated and described in advance, and then we could proceed to execute the decision without delay. There's no need to panic over things that aren't being done. Also, see my longer message below which I copy-pasted from the other page. -Splashtalk 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If we have a convention in place, we should indeed be able to speedy said categories. I see where user:CalJW is having trouble with it. We shouldn't be American English-ing an international encyclopedia, and yeah, mistakes will happen. That said, speedies have two days for objections. There are enough people at CfD who would notice it. And if by chance something does get by, it's not hard to fix it. We have bots for that sort of thing. --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Two days is not enough due to the low level of visitors on the page and the lack of prominence of the speedy section. I never looked at it until recently. The assumption is that it is for totally non-controversial moves, but this proposal will change that. I don't think it is enough to just assume that people will make appropriate speedy nominations nearly all the time. So far there is a 0% success rate - 0 out of 2. CalJW 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Rick Block is quite correct. The discussion (which I spent an inordinate amount of time debating with others) was clear that the principles we established, given on the main page, were to be viewed as speedies unless someone objected. We didn't actually construct a new speedy mechanism for cats, because we lost some of our core editors (and the proposal, in a refactoring). So they are speedies, but as with all speedies on CfD there's a 48 hour delay as it says at the top of that section, to allow time for objections on reasonable grounds. As ever, you'd have to have a good reason for it. I don't think there would be a problem with de-speedying certain, individual entries from the main page, after discussion here. So if the transport one conflicts with a consensual arrangement elsewhere, we need to talk about it. Equally, if there was one particular cat that needed, for some extenuating reason, to be different to the rest within a speedy-group, we can talk about it — if it's that obvious, it shouldn't be hard to give it a green light. But we don't need to just go excising the bits of policy we don't like, or I shall take to task with a few choice ones of my own, elsewhere! -Splashtalk 14:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That's an argument for inertia. Most policies were agreed by very small groups of people. They aren't necessarily right. I should point out that due to my current work completing the top-tier categorisation of all of the national menus in the world (I've finished about 40 and started work on another 20 so far) the change I want will impose far more work on me than on anyone else. And I am planning to follow up by going through all the "categories by country", so it will be me doing much of the extra work there too. CalJW 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
As another participant, I can confirm that we consensually agreed on the following:
  • All categories whose subcategories are categories by country (roughly all categories that are members of category:categories by country) shall have a naming convention which will apply to all of their subcategories. The naming conventions will be listed at Wikipedia:Category titles and should generally follow the guidelines specified on that page. Conformance to these naming conventions shall be treated as "speedy renaming" CFD criteria. Changing these conventions shall require a CFD renaming consensus.

It is regrettable this aspect was not placed on the front page, the reason for which was probably fatigue, this was a long and arduous discussion. Is the above clause disputed, or is there still consensus on it? Hiding talk 19:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Hiding talk 19:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that, in the absence of consensus to change, it stands. That does not preclude the kind of discussions I mentioned, nor indeed the complete abolition of the scheme: but again, only through consensual discussion. We should try to keep this in one place - I'm having to cross post everything! -Splashtalk 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming - losing comments

There is a small and slow debate going on at Category_talk:Freeman of the City of London which could eventually lead to a delete vote. However Category:Freeman of the City of London seems to have been largely moved to Category:Freemen of the City of London (plural) without moving the comments. Not clever, in this case or in others. It should be an obligation on anyone undertaking such a move to move the talk page. --Audiovideo 20:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't notice the talk page when moving the category. It must be said, category talk pages are rare. Now moved.
James F. (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dbenbenn Violations of CfD

Twice User:Dbenbenn has bypassed CfD. Special:Undelete/Category:District_of_Columbia

  • September 13 2005: emptied several categories despite a recent decision to not delete [2] and immediately marked them for speedy deletion (violation of CSD#2: 24 hour waiting period). Claims to have left a timestamp someplace of when 24 hours they would actually be CSD candidates. [3] Person doing deletion didn't follow guidelines either.
  • September 25 2005: again emptied several District of Columbia categories and personally speedy deleted them immediately.
  1. Category:District of Columbia
  2. Category:Washington, District of Columbia
  3. Category:History of the District of Columbia
  4. Category:Images of District of Columbia
  5. Category:Government of the District of Columbia
  6. Category:Cities in District of Columbia

—(SEWilco 16:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC))

Of course, if others agree with SEWilco, I'll accept that I was wrong. But I think the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 15#Category:Washington, D.C. to Category:Washington, District of Columbia was perfectly clear, where only one person supported SEWilco's proposal to use the categories he listed above. dbenbenn | talk 19:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There was no CfD to delete Category:District of Columbia, Category:Images of District of Columbia, nor Category:Washington, District of Columbia. (SEWilco 13:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
You proposed to replace Category:Washington, D.C. with Category:Washington, District of Columbia. That proposal was rejected. Is there anyone else who thinks it's necessary to have a formal discussion about deleting Category:Washington, District of Columbia, when its use has been rejected? dbenbenn | talk 00:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_3&oldid=1146648768"