Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CFD/S)
See also: WT:CFD/W, WT:CAT, and WT:CATP
See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User and WT:CFD/W/M
Shortcut
XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 8 0 8
TfD 0 1 15 0 16
MfD 0 0 7 0 7
FfD 0 0 4 0 4
RfD 0 0 68 0 68
AfD 0 0 4 0 4

Cosmetic change

[edit]

I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of {{CfD top}} from  bff9fc  to  caf0f2  (or at least something similar). SWinxy asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.

 bff9fc  is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not against the idea, per se, but if we're going to change it, I would prefer that we change it to a named web colour and not to a numeric code. - jc37 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


This is an example of text (LightCyan)


This is an example of text (PaleTurquoise)


This is an example of text (PowderBlue)


This is an example of text (LightBlue)


This is an example of text (SkyBlue)


This is an example of text (Lavender)


I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc37 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to  LightCyan ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:

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

Courtesy pings to some CfD regulars as well as participants in the above discussion: @AHI-3000, Cremastra, Fayenatic london, Jc37, LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, SilverLocust, Smasongarrison, SWinxy, ToadetteEdit, Ymblanter, and Zxcvbnm. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2023 in horse racing

[edit]

The category Category:2023 in horse racing is included into Category:2023 in equestrian which has been deleted and moved to Category:2023 in equestrian sports. (The same problem is for every year). I tried to find which template which sets the category but I can not see where it is. Could someone help me please? It probably requires just one edit for every year in some template. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league coaches by team

[edit]

I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories.

What do you think about upmerging all team categories in Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.

Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are some categories with over 10 entries, and these are probably legit, and there are others with two or three, these can be upmerged. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter, the size isn't what I meant. I think these are trivial because most of these are former major league players so short minor league coaching stints - since minor leagues coaches are shifted around a lot in the farm system of a major league team - aren't defining to their career. Does that make sense? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but still needs obviously to go through CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter, of course. I put two categories up before because the teams were defunct and had one article in each - and hence not likely to grow - so I'm just waiting for that to close. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cfds not going through

[edit]

I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.

Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @Smasongarrison, @HouseBlaster, @Qwerfjkl. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog at WT:CFDW; it will be sorted eventually. WP:NODEADLINE is applicable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I was concerned that it may have been a bot issue (Mason suggested it might be) or something else as, usually, these go through within a week or some and there are a lot that have been stalled for over a month (and some even earlier). Hence why I brought it up. But there isn't any issue then I understand. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed lack of admins who add closed nominations to the page for bot. It does not help much that I am leaving for holidays today, but we will eventually sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Enjoy your holiday! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this to me User:Pppery; I wasn't aware that there was a backlog. Apologies for pressing the issue! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination at Category:Chemical Biology

[edit]

Category:Chemical Biology has been tagged for CfD, but has no corresponding discussion ("this category's entry"). This seems to be a straight-forward duplicate of Category:Chemical biology, but I'm not familiar with CfD or categories in general. Should this be renominated or can this be merged/redirected with no discussion as uncontroversial? ― Synpath 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From history of the page and Special:Contributions/ScienceChemBio, it looks like User:ScienceChemBio hasn't followed the instructions for the nomination to the end. A possible solution could be to replace content of page Category:Chemical Biology with {{category redirect|Category:Chemical biology}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I have done this after skimming over some of the speedy merge criteria for CfD. It seems to qualify for WP:C2A and WP:C2D, but bots will clean up it up anyways per the info at the category redirect template. No fuss, thanks again. ― Synpath 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no reason to keep the redirect, so I have deleted it. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my sensibilities probably skew too much to RfD where the alternate captilization could be considered helpful as 'chemical biology' appears often enough as a proper noun in university course titles and textbooks. ― Synpath 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The top half of the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.

The opposite approach is used on WP:RFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:BN, all of which have subpages for their "static", almost "unchanging" parts. E.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. In case of RFD, it can be very useful to see the history of the changes to the instructions/procedure separately from changes to the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Aside from taking every text snippet to wikiblame, are there any other ways of looking at how instructions and procedure of WP:CFD/S changed over time? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria used to be at WP:CFSD rather than WP:CFDS until 2016.[1] Since then, you can search the archives of this talk page for "speedy criteria" if that's what interests you, as changes are generally proposed here before implementation. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The content removed from WP:CFSD in Special:Diff/749906670 was added to WP:CFDS in Special:Diff/749906249. Prior to that it was a section transclusion. Since then quite a lot changed: Special:Diff/749906249/1221394590. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-renaming (probably) needed

[edit]

I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely...Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :) DonIago (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better integration between closing RMs and this page

[edit]

There really needs to be better integration between closing RMs and notifying this page (or a new central cleanup page) of the close. I stumbled across Talk:Alborz province#Requested move 24 January 2022, which seems that had no follow up work done to articles, sub-articles and categories. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopenings

[edit]

Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).

The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.

In theory, Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).

Moreover, I didn't know that all editors could challenge a closure and request a reopening at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and that this was regular practice.

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

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

So:

  • Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?
  • Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.

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

@Marcocapelle, perhaps I could ask for your opinion as a start? NLeeuw (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: I do not have an issue with stipulation #3. The only thing that we should clearly avoid is that it leads to forumshopping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How could stipulation #3 lead to forumshopping, then? NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.
      Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me.[Joke] NLeeuw (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participation is often much thinner at CFD than at AFD. For several years, CFD was being closed rather slowly, so there was ample time to notice and participate if interested. Recently we have gained more active closers who are generally closing CFDs after 7 days, and I am therefore inclined to reopen given almost any request, so that a point of view may be aired fully in a traceable location. The request may be made on the closer's talk page or any other page. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london Thanks for your belated reply. Could you explain how participation relates to the 2 questions I posed above? NLeeuw (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point of stipulation #3 above is that if a discussion appears to have been closed prematurely, it should be reopened on request. This is also behind my explanation about participation.
    I have seen examples over the last year where CFDs have been closed after 7 days even though there was recent ongoing discussion which had not petered out, so I would have left them open for longer. In other words, premature closure definitely happens.
    Another reason that I have been easy about reopening CFDs is that there is often a delay between closing and implementing them. If the request arrives before implementation, then it is easy to reopen them.
    As for your questions, then: Q1 – Yes, in the case of closures that have not yet been implemented. Stipulation #3 should be softened in the case of CFD as category nominations gain less attention and therefore less participation. Q2 then becomes unnecessary. Once the decision has been implemented, then it's up to the closer to decide whether to reopen it or point to WP:DRV/WP:MRV. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response! I do understand that low CFD participation can sometimes make the decision process practically different from AFDs, but I see several concerns as well. I'll re-read and consider everything carefully before I reply, as this is a bit of a complicated issue. Good night for now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburbs of Kalgoorlie-Boulder

[edit]

The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Germany and German Confederation

[edit]

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

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

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

Should occupation categories be added to location categories?

[edit]

There's a bit of a dispute here about whether a category such as Category:Newspaper people by newspaper in New York City should be included in Category:Journalists from New York City and the same with alumni of universities and schools and so on. Only the categories, not the articles/people, mind you. My view is that this helps in navigation. Others differ and its even led to heated exchanges. I thought I should bring this here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here, and here are the main ones. My role is VERY recent, I would add. It only came to my attention a week or so ago by complete chance. I think it should be settled amicably rather than be brought up every few weeks in heated exchanges. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like much of CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get the ball rolling here: @Marcocapelle, @HouseBlaster, @Ymblanter, @Pppery, @Fayenatic london, @LaundryPizza03, and @Smasongarrison. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Omnis Scientia! I really really appreciate you taking the lead. My view is similar to Omnis, that I think we should include these categories in the People from Foo. It makes it easier to implement policy for pages. However, as you will have gathered from my conversations with @Alansohn and @Lost in Quebec, others disagree. I'd rather not add much to the conversation because I'd much rather defer to consensus. Mason (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

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

If Rangasyd consented then you could just move it summarily under WP:G7 or WP:IAR. But listing at CFDS can have the benefit of even better ideas, e.g. as this has only one member it should either be populated more or upmerged. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Rangasyd (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=1243280132"