Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Categories for discussion (CfD) is where the renaming, merging or deletion of categories – i.e. pages in the Category namespace – is discussed and action decided. Stub types templates are also discussed here.

Categories are used to organize pages and aid the browsing of related articles. For instructions as to how to use this page, perform cleanup maintenance or request speedy deletions or renamings, see "How to use this page" below. The policies meant to guide category renaming may be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made.

Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised.

When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it is usually helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.

Current discussions[edit]

Add a new entry


Discussions awaiting closure[edit]


How to use CfD[edit]

Shortcut:

Procedure[edit]

To list a category manually for deletion, merging or renaming, follow this process:

I
Preliminary steps.

Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming.

  1. If it is a red link and has no subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Overcategorization before using these discussion pages.
  3. Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant to other categories (not redundant to stand-alone lists), small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas.
  4. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy when nominating or commenting on people-related categories.
  5. Please read Wikipedia:User categories and Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories when nominating or commenting on Wikipedian categories.
  6. In the following special cases:
    • If the category is empty for more than four days, use {{db-catempty}} for a speedy deletion.
    • If the category is only populated by a template and both the category and template are being proposed for deletion, follow the instructions at templates for discussion.
II
Edit the category.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the category text of every category to be discussed. (The tags belong on the categories' main pages rather than their talk/discussion pages.)

If the category is a candidate for speedy renaming, use:
and follow the instructions at Speedy renaming.
If a single category:
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd}}
  • For a merger, {{subst:cfm|Other category}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:cfr|Proposed name}}
  • For splitting, {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2}}
  • For converting the category contents into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name}}
  • For converting the category page text into an article, {{subst:cfc|Proposed name}}
If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page):
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd|Cfd section name}}
  • For a merger, {{subst:cfm|Other category|Cfd section name}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:cfr|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For splitting, {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|Cfd section name}}
  • For converting the category contents into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For converting the category page text into an article, {{subst:cfc|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • Please include "CFD", "CFM", "CFR", "CFS", "CFL" or "CFC" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
  • Preview before saving. The display will give more precise instructions about the next step.
  • See the documentation pages at {{cfd}}, {{cfm}}, {{cfr}}, {{cfs}}, {{cfl}} and {{cfc}} for more specific information.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfdnotice2|Category name|date=yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. See the doc page at Template:Cfdnotice2/doc for more information on how to use this template as well as other similar templates that can be used to notify the category's creator or related WikiProjects specifically.
III
Create the CFD subsection.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), to copy and paste the template shown. All categories are specified without the Category: prefix.

For {{Cfd}}, use:
{{subst:cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfm}}, use:
{{subst:cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfr}} to a definite name, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Old category|New category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfr}} to an indefinite name, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Old category|to be determined by consensus|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfs}} to definite names, use:
{{subst:cfs2|Old category|New category 1|New category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfl}} or {{Cfc}}, use:
{{subst:cfc2|Origin category|Destination article|text= Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For umbrella nominations, the standard templates should build the "Cfd section name" for the 1st nomination, although the 2nd and subsequent nominations must be added manually, like this:
==== Cfd section name ====
  • 1st category
  • 2nd category
  • Your reason for nominating the category. ~~~~ (Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming.)
  • If an umbrella nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide the bulk of nominated categories.
  • When using these templates, the old and new categories you specify are automatically converted to links: you do not specify them as links yourself.
  • In your reason, please link appropriate articles or categories to help other editors.
  • In your reason, when linking to a category, always add a colon (':') in the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
  • Preview before saving to ensure all the fields have been properly listed.

Once you have previewed your entry, please make sure to add your signature after your proposal. If nominating a list of entries as a batch mentioned after your rationale, it is somewhat neater to place these after the signature (rather than leave the signature dangling at the end of the list, apparently unrelated to your reasons).

Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding to your watchlist any categories you nominate. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle[edit]

The use of Wikipedia:Twinkle greatly facilitates CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to "my preferences", the "Gadgets" tab, the "Browsing" section and check "Twinkle ...". Use the now-installed "XfD" (Nominate for deletion) tab while viewing the page to be deleted or renamed.

Users without accounts and users with new accounts[edit]

Users without accounts (unregistered users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD).

Redirecting categories[edit]

Shortcut:

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)

Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects.

In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.

Closing[edit]

When closing CfDs, document their results (e.g. with links to CfD page history) on the talk pages of the affected categories, if not deleted. If deleted, document the deletion decision in the deletion edit summary.

Special notes[edit]

When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Categories that should exist but are missing articles or subcategories should be added to Category:Underpopulated categories using {{Popcat}}.

If a category is only used as generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo-stub), and that template is deleted by a regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template, or mentioned early in the discussion.

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut:

Categories may be listed for speedy renaming or speedy merging if they meet one or more of the criteria specified below. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. A request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required to process these. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.

Contested requests become stale, and can be un-tagged and de-listed, after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to continue the process, s/he needs to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.

Speedy criteria[edit]

The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C1. Unpopulated categories[edit]

Shortcut:
That have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.
Tag category with {{Db-c1}}.

C2. Renaming or merging[edit]

Shortcuts:
C2A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours →Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
C2B. Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names.
  • This should only be used where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
  • This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages which resulted in a no consensus result.
C2E. Author request.
  • This criterion only applies if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within 28 days of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
For C2A to C2E, tag category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}} and list on WP:CFDS. Administrators may implement C2E cases without delay.

For any categories that are not speedy candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here,
    • And no objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming here[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: * [[:Category:Old name]] to [[:Category:New name]] – Reason for rename ~~~~
This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.

Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 12:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC). Currently, there are 75 open requests (refresh).


Current nominations[edit]

oppose Why disambiguate when unnecessary? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it's an established convention to do so in categories—to match the category name to the format of the relevant article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It's exceedingly ambiguous and unhelpfully named as is -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
oppose (per Commons) Why disambiguate when unnecessary? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it's an established convention to do so in categories—to match the category name to the format of the relevant article name. We follow the Wikipedia article name, not the Commons name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It's exceedingly ambiguous and unhelpfully named as is -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Opposed nominations[edit]

  • oppose all five of these. "6502" is defining and clear, "MOS Technology 6502" is less clear, not defining (no-one using the computer as a finished device cares which fab made the chips) and fails WP:COMMONNAME as it would be most unusual to see the computers described in this way at the time, rather than simply "6502".
Also, and most obviously for the Z80, these chips did come from many fabs. The Z80 was very widely licensed and second sourced. Even the earlier CPUs had some cloning going on from the Eastern bloc (Warpac, not Far East). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:Z80-based home computers to Category:Zilog Z80-based home computers – C2B per Zilog Z80 Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment wouldn't that restrict it to genuine Zilog, instead of being inclusive of compatible, licensed, and clone chips? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • NOTE the category states that it also covers the Intel 8080 (the predecessor to the Z80), so it seems the scope of the category is mismatched with its name. And since it would therefore contain Intel and Zilog based chips, and the chips are expected to be reported as Z80 compatible or 8080 compatible, of those which are neither Zilog nor Intel, a full discussion is in order to find the proper name of this category. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose see above.
As to the Z80 / 8080 issue, then that's because the architecture of the two processors is so similar (the Z80 is a superset) that there was broad software commonality between them (CP/M being the obvious example), whilst the 6502 family remained distinct. The Z80 soon replaced the 8080 and so 8080-alone machines (which do have some historical noteworthiness) is likely to fail WP:SMALLCAT and so has already been merged to the Z80s. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:Detroit College of Law alumni to Category:Michigan State University College of Law alumni – C2D: per Michigan State University College of Law (school changed its name a decade ago). postdlf (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    Oppose renaming to avoid anachronistic references. Persons who graduated from the DCL did not attend the MSU college of law. There should be an MSUCL alumni category for graduates since the renaming though (if/when there are any with articles). olderwiser 20:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    Support - while I agree with Bkonrad's comment in theory - it does not necessarily appear that this has been the case elsewhere. Taking for example Eastern Michigan University, which was previously known as Michigan State Normal School, does not appear to categorize anyone involved with Michigan State Normal School outside of Eastern Michigan University categories. The same appears to be true with other schools such as Ross School of Business, although I was not able to find a more recent renaming example. So for consistency sake, unless there are other examples where dual categories was done, I support renaming. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral - I remain concerned that this is not done consistently - and I do not find the arguments that the school is very different after being renamed and relocated very compelling. However, I do agree that we have neglected school articles, and the lack of precedent may be based more on laziness than logic. I would support dual categories here as a precedent moving forward as I can see some navigational and sorting logic behind wanting to find content specific to specific periods in the school's history. The sad reality, as has been pointed out on IRC, is that we are not treating our school articles as well as we should be - so I agree an argument can be made here for two categories, and concede to admin wisdom on the best solution. :) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 02:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose – it is neater and more intuitive to categorise alumni of foo (now named goo) as a subcat of alumni of goo. Brian Sims is an alumnus of Michigan State University College of Law but the articles for most of the others will not mention Michigan State University at all (eg Dennis Archer). Oculi (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    Support, this is an example of a college changing its name and, with other college and university articles, it is common to change the category name when the college name changes. If this was a proposal to merge the category with Category:Michigan State University alumni, well, that would be entirely different, but it's not what's being suggested here. Anyway, isn't it possible to leave a redirect from Category:Detroit College of Law alumni?Sionk (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Comment, since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that Category:Michigan State University College of Law alumni should at least exist, I have gone ahead and created it until this is resolved to at least categorize alumni who graduated from the renamed school. Sionk - yes - a category redirect can be setup. However, I think the argument folks are making is that the old category would be helpful to categorize people who did indeed graduate from the school before it was renamed to document which version of the school they attended - post or pre rename. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    So that would then require a 'merge' if this discussion goes the nominator's way. To be honest it would become chaotic if a new category was created every time a college changed its name. The college I graduated from has changed it's name at least six times cince the 1860's! Sionk (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Strongly Oppose renaming to avoid anachronistic references. As a person who graduated from the DCL and did not attend the MSU college of law (which is fundamentally a different school, not only in name and location but also in terms of mission, methods and aspiration since it was transmogrified to celebrate its centennial), I think that the existing category should be kept. I agree with olderwiser that there should be an MSUCL alumni category for graduates since the renaming though (if/when there are any with articles).
    Indeed, the article itself on Detroit College of Law concentrates primarily on Michigan State University College of Law, and at least could benefit from a picture of the old building. The article largely glosses over the unique character of this private college within a public university, and why it came about. The older school was largely obliterated (there are a few historical architectural adornments in the second floor of the new building). It also ignores the fundamental change in direction that the college underwent when it moved and was reborn and recast. And of course, the old college is now under right field at Comerica Park.
In passing, I would note that all of the "Notable alumni" listed in the article, with the exception of Kwame Kilpatrick, went to Detroit College of Law before it moved to East Lansing.
If something is to be done, it should be to create a category for Michigan State University College of Law. And if you wanted to make the existing category a subcategory of that (thereby maintaining the distinction as it applies), then it would all make sense to me.
Obliterating the historical divide is not a good thing. 7&6=thirteen () 14:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I can appreciate the logic behind that. It does sound like this is a unique circumstance vs. a traditional college renaming. Although, arguably Michigan Normal School was very different from Eastern Michigan University - yet they are all in one category - and I imagine people from that time would have objected as well. I think it should be consistent, but perhaps what has been done elsewhere is not best here or moving forward. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose. A DCL grad is no more an MSU alum than Jackie Robinson is a Los Angeles Dodger. If the school had remained in situ and just changed its name - maybe then, okay; but Detroit College of Law and Michigan State University are very different institutions with very different histories, in quite different locations, and it is confusing and misleading to lump alums of both into the same category. JohnInDC (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • On that basis someone needs to re-write the MSUCL article to disassociate it from this, erm, completely different Detroit College of Law (currently a redirect to the former). Either they share the same history or they don't. If they claim/share the same history then they don't need separate categories, surely. Sionk (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Comment, as a reply to Sionk, I think you have put the cart before the horse. No one is saying that Michigan State University College of Law and Detroit College of Law share a common root history. However, Category Detroit College of Law alumni relates both to the school and to the individuals who attended it. As to the alumni who attended Detroit College of Law, no time machine will transmute their experience as a student into having attended Michigan State University College of Law, even though the latter school is the successor to the institutional name/heritage.
The Category has a dual nature. In part it is about the school. But as an element of articles about individual alumni, it is about them and their life experience. So your argument has some truth, but misses the bigger picture. 7&6=thirteen () 14:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The article in fact begins "Established in 1891 as the Detroit College of Law", therefore the article is saying that Michigan State University College of Law and Detroit College of Law share a common root history. Otherwise it would say "Michigan State University College of Law is a new college established in 1997" (which it clearly doesn't). Even the college's own website says it is the same college. It has simply 'affiliated' with MSU since 1995. Sionk (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It may be the same corporate entity - I don't know - but it did not simply change its name and add curriculum (like, e.g, Eastern Michigan University); it moved 90 miles away and, according to comments above, substantially changed its mission as well. It seems that they are sufficiently different, corporate identity notwithstanding, that the older category should remain - just as the category "New York Giants (NL) players" remains for Christy Mathewson remains and not "San Francisco Giants players" even though the SF Giants are unquestionably the successor - same team as - the earlier, NY version. JohnInDC (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It was initially one of the first urban law colleges, and it was affiliated with the YMCA. Historically it produced lots of practitioners, judges, etc., and they were schooled to a large extent by practitioners, judges, etc. This was a Detroit, Michigan institution.
After it moved to East Lansing and affiliated with Michigan State University, it set its goals on becoming a Big Ten law school affiliated with a major university. It also changed the kind of faculty it hired (lots of former judicial clerks) and the locale of students it recruited (more national than before, I think). This brought a change in methods and goals.
I am not suggesting that there was anything wrong with either iteration of the school. I am suggesting that it changed location, direction, personnel, student body.
Finally, I do not see any harm in keeping the differentiation between the categories (one of which is proposed), and I respectfully submit that have the existing category as a subcategory of Michigan State College of Law alumni satisfies everyone, while preserving verisimilitude to the very articles in which the category appears. 7&6=thirteen () 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the same non-profit organization, and I am not sure that the changes mentioned really justify it being a different institution. Arguably the difference between Normal State College and Eastern Michigan University were far more vast - they added multiple locations since then although the main hub has stayed at Ypsilanti. Stating that moving locations and hiring different kind of faculty are more vast than transforming from an teachers college to a multi-college multi-location different type of legal entity and governed public university seems like an off-balance comparison. In this case, the only change appears to be name, location, and admin strategy. The entity remains the same and MSU does not appear to have any legal control over that nonprofit - it is just an affiliation. I can see how using the MSU name complicates all of that - but that appears to be a marketing strategy more than a legal entity change. My concern is that alumni, who as the article notes do not all support the name change, have a bias that may hinder compromise. I can appreciate that it seems like a very different school to those that attended, but from the outside, I am not sure that is comparably true. I would prefer examples to other schools than sports teams - who change owners, legal entities, and a number of other factors that do not apply here. Are there examples of schools changing names and locations and how those articles and categories were handled? Or are there other examples of schools where perhaps the histories are different enough that a similar approach should be considered there as well, even if it is not being used there now? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 03:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Though none of what you're saying is stated in the article or substantiated by any of the sources. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe these sort of discussions need to happen on the article's Talk page. There has been no objections to the heritage of MSUCL raised before now (even from you). It seems in 1998 the newly located college was called Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University, which may be worth mentioning earlier in the article. Sionk (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OPPOSED - the Detroit College of Law is exactly that, it is not MSU. G.J.Dunn

STRONGLY OPPOSED - As President of the MSU College of Law Alumni Association I think it is absolutely essential that the DCL Alumni page not be consolidated with MSU College of Law Alumni Page. The reasons are simple but very important. Detroit College of Law has a very proud history that remains today with their Alumni. Any effort to destroy their autonomy would have serious side effects to both MSC College of Law and Detroit College of Law in fundraising and keeping the history of these two great institutions in place. Members of DCL Alumni may never have even set foot on the MSU Campus. Although their physical location has changed there are thousands of Detroit College of Law Alumni that remain in active support of Detroit College of Law totally separate from MSU College of Law.

To keep two separate pages is not a duplication as the members went to school at two different locations and have a total different history to reflect upon.

On behalf of the Alumni Association and the administration of the Michigan State University College of Law we urge Wikipedia not to alter the status quo and leave all alumni pages as is. Separate and distinct.

Howard Victor President MSU College of Law Alumni Association January 22, 2015

  • Your own Association website clearly contradicts this, the first sentence says "We invite you – as an alumnus of MSU Law or its predecessor Detroit College of Law – to join the ranks of graduates who belong to the Alumni Association." If you want to preserve the distinction, why do you allow graduates from DCL to join? They clearly share the same history and the evidence indicates you agree. Sionk (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also - I worry that alumni have a stated conflict of interest. The article states: "Many Detroit College of Law alumni do not acknowledge their affiliation with MSU, although they were offered MSU diplomas at a cost of $400 after the merger and renaming." That implies to me that this goes well beyond just Wikipedia categories, and should perhaps not be a factor in anything beyond documenting that divide. I still have not seen any arguments not specific to the politics of this school that logically support opposing this. The arguments made have been emotional, not logical. "Any effort to destroy their autonomy would have serious side effects to both MSC College of Law and Detroit College of Law in fundraising and keeping the history of these two great institutions in place." That is not even remotely something that Wikipedia should be worried about, nor does it really explain why - it is an emotional argument. There are many edits that had side effects on nonprofit fundraising - it just cannot be a concern here. "To keep two separate pages is not a duplication as the members went to school at two different locations and have a total different history to reflect upon." That seems to be a comment about the article - which is not under discussion here. It also does not recognize any of the above conversation on other schools that have changed locations and even scope - but do not get this unique categorization. My position remains the same, there is logic behind two categories, but I still haven't seen anything to support it is consistent with how we have done this elsewhere, or that this is anything beyond an emotional request from alumni. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 01:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not an alum of either DCL or MSUCL and have no personal stake in the decision. I do however believe that, particularly in light of the 90 mile relocation of the original Detroit College of Law to E. Lansing, it is confusing and anachronistic to categorize graduates who may never even have set foot in E. Lansing as graduates of a school that - today - is found only there. Whether the category of DCL alums remains as a separate category or as a subcategory of MSUCL doesn't matter; but I the distinction is valid and should be preserved here. For reasons of logic, not emotion. JohnInDC (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That the alumni association of Michigan State University College of Law would want to have Category: Detroit College of Law alumni as members does not negate the fact that their website expresssly recognizes the distinction. I note that "Howard Victor President MSU College of Law Alumni Association" edited from an IP address, and now you see 'he is in conflict.' I would suggest that you have been gifted with the independent voice of a user and reader of Wikipedia, who told us that there is utility in maintaining the distinction. This is a category that attaches to individual articles of an individual alumnus. It gives an orientation as to time and place that aids readers. The categorization has read world consequences, beyond those found in the world of Wikipedia. While "policy" may be to fit everyone into one box—one size fits all is a Procrustean solution—there is nothing to say that the Matryoshka principle should not apply. You can have nesting categories within categories: a good balance that accommodates the dual nature of the category. To invite alumni into the tent, or even admit that they belong in the tent, does not change who they are, who they perceive themselves to be, or where they went to school. 7&6=thirteen () 13:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:Liverpool Anglican Cathedral to Category:Liverpool Cathedral – C2D: per Liverpool Cathedral. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Oppose Liverpool has two cathedrals. Now there may be some obscure theological reason why the Anglican cathedral takes precedence and so the simplified category would be "right", but that would be an ecumenical matter. What's clear, per pragmatic reasons of WP:COMMONNAME, is that confusion between the two cathedrals is rife. Using simple and distinct names (and this truly is the Anglican cathedral) has advantages to WP, even if not ontologically necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Comment I'm ambivalent on this one, though there are indeed two Liverpool cathedrals and, personally, I find the Metropolitan Cathedral far more memorable and interesting. However, if there has been consensus that the Anglican cathedral (in an Anglican country) takes precedence, I see no great problem to rename the category. There's no equivalent category for the Metropolitan (Catholic) Cathedral anyway! Sionk (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose The building is called Liverpool Cathedral not for "some obscure theological reason" (!) but because it was there first: for 60 years it was the only cathedral in Liverpool (though unfinished) so obviously it was called Liverpool Cathedral then, and it still is, although now the RC one is down the road. I think it's fair to leave the article name as it is. However, now there are two cathedrals, so IMHO it makes sense for the category to be concisely "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral" to avoid ambiguity. There's no equivalent category for the Catholic cathedral now, but one may be created in the future, and if the category for the Anglican cathedral was "Liverpool Cathedral" there would be confusion. Stanning (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
Moved to full discussion[edit]

Ready for deletion[edit]

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Categories possibly emptied out of process[edit]

Note. Categories listed here will be automatically moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 96 hours.
Note. Due to limits of the software, all contents of the category may not be displayed. View the category directly to see all contents.