Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

See also: WT:CFD/W, WT:CAT, and WT:CATP

See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User and WT:CFD/W/M

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	104	127
TfD	0	0	2	1	3
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	17	26
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

How do I oppose an opposition here?

There's a proposal on the main page here to speedily move a category. Someone has opposed the speedy move, and given a rationale. I'd like to say something in favor of the move. But the discussion is now under the heading "Opposed requests." What's the proper way to put in my 2 cents? Do I do it right where it is, or do I move the discussion somewhere? Uporządnicki (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

AzseicsoK, you have two options, comment under the nomination, which may not make any difference if the oppose is reasonable, or start a full WP:CFD discussion and mention it under the discussion. TSventon (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

When a Speedy deletion is opposed, you can always start a “slow” (CFD) deletion discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Scope and juristiction

Do you guys have juristiciaon over userbox categories, or is that under MfD? User:Crainsaw 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The specific proposal you appear to have written at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Political userbox category, if it belongs at any deletion discussion venue, belongs at MFD. But I think a request for comment is likely to be a better venue for it than either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

How do I mass-nominate?

Hi, per precedent I'd like to mass-nominate Category:People by language family of descent and all its subcategories with either "language family", "Turkic" or "Slavic" in it, but nothing else. How do I do that easily without making it a tedious manual task? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

If by task you mean tagging the categories we have a few people able to do that with a bot but it might take a few days to get the categories tagged. Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Fine with me, I'm not in a hurry. I would rather have a bot do it than tagging it all manually. I could use my time and my hands more productively. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be quite easy with AWB. What do you want to do with the list? Oculi (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/sandbox1. Oculi (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oculi Thanks so much! What do I do now? Do I still have to tag all these pages manually? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you just wish to delete them? Oculi (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oculi Yes (per precedent). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oculi how do I do that easily? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User_talk:Qwerfjkl#Large_nomination - this editor has assisted in the past. Oculi (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, yes, I can tag them all, just nominate one of them for deletion (so I have a discussion to link to) and I'll tag them. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Thanks!  Done: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_24#Category:People_by_language_family_of_descent. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────┘
@Nederlandse Leeuw,  Done— Qwerfjkltalk 13:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

One of these days I should get around to making a script for this. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: If you ever have the time, that would be awesome! - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect, I've started to do this, just waiting for a chance to test it. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

At least I can get my edit count up. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what notification template I should use on authors' talk pages? {{Cfd notice}} is only for a single category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect, this took a bit longer than I expected. I haven't thoroughly tested the script yet, but it should work. See User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD.js. Works on Special:MassCFD. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: That second link is red. Is it needed? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect, yes, I just needed a page to run the script on. It will override the normal text on the page. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I just tagged Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Treasure troves by country using the script (on my tablet no less), so I'm now fairly confident it will work properly. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Should rcats be discussed here?

@Fayenatic London, do you know if rcats should be discussed here or at TfD? Asking in relation to this TfD discussion about an rcat. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question; I don't know of any precedents. That one mainly populates work-specific categories, but as it populates Category:Fictional work redirects by default, I suggest adding a CFD nomination for that category and linking its discussion to the TfD. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think they're pretty much like any maintenance cat. If the populating template is deleted, then the associated cat can typically be speedied - housekeeping, empty, whatever. - jc37 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Mass deletion proposals overwhelming

Hi. I am getting bombarded with mass proposals of deletion of categories I created, work alone that took me many hours. I find it unreasonable because I cannot be on top of all of them at the same time and cannot have time to populate them when that's the concern. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you please expand a bit what the problem is? Are the proposals to delete the categories because they are empty, and they have never been populated? Or are the proposals to move them to different names? Some cases we could be able to fix (and they have to do with a recent backlog in dealing with speedy CfD), and some we can not. Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I embarked in a project to categorize diverse subcategories in the category:assassinated politicians. Although I don't do it exclusively, because I work on Wikipedia the things that motivate me for the day. But suddenly a couple of editors started having issue with the categories I created and started all this proposals to delete or merge them, stating they are unpopulated or have few pages, etc.

The issue is they have created all these proposals sometimes including many in the same thread and therefore I am not being given a reasonable time to work on them. For example, look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Category:Assassinated heads of state by time.

I created them with the idea that other editors with the passing of time would help populate them, while I was also doing it through time, not all at once. For example, I spent many hours helping categorize Category:Assassinated American politicians. I was planning on continuing working on similar categories but I stumbled on this deletion proposals. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78, there is no problem with time, you are free to ask for a week or two to populate the categories. That being said, given you created the categories, the onus is on you to populate them, not to leave it to other editors. You should try to add at least 5-10 articles to each category. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have populated Category:Assassinated African heads of state. I will work on the other ones in the thread Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent if editors don't give other reasons for deletion, to avoid working in deleted categories. How long should I wait for additional comments? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78, don't worry about that, leave that to the closer. They will relist or close the discussion as necessary. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft categories question

Is there draft space for categories to see how a tree works out? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Rcat template documentation pages

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Category:Rcat template documentation pages this was closed but I don't see the category in the /working sub-page. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym, from my watchlist I can tell you, @Paine Ellsworth has been updating the pages with AWB. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up to sports clubs/teams merger

I just noticed the 6 June CfD to merge sports clubs and teams categories, and I wonder if this is an issue overlooked by the participants: Many of the articles under the sports clubs categories are sports clubs in the sense of country clubs or similar social venues, not competitive clubs/teams. As a result of the CfD, Category:Golf clubs and courses is now under the combined Category:Sports clubs and teams. Is this as desired? Or should such categories and articles be removed and placed under the venues tree instead (if not already there)? Pinging discussion participants Aidan721, Bearcat, Marcocapelle, Pelmeen10, Laurel Lodged and Fayenatic london. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: it is certainly something that I overlooked. But I am not sure if the result is undesirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems that the term sports club is overloaded here. See sports club, which has a hatnote to sports team. —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't remove Golf clubs from Sports clubs and teams. I think the Golf clubs and courses hierarchy is already all within Sports venues, which is also clearly correct. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as no one here thinks it's a problem it can probably be left alone. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for musician category with albums and songs subcats

As suggested by Marcocapelle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_19#Category:Broods, let's have a new speedy criterion to allow deletion of a musician category if it only contains a main article plus songs sub-cat and albums sub-cat. Such a category needs to be nominated for manual merging only of the main article if required, and would need to be manually deleted because the {{albums category}} & {{songs category}} templates on the sub-cats will populate it as long as it exists.

This could be set up as a special case of WP:C2F, or a new separate criterion. I suggest the nomination should use a new template. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• As the one who started the discussion about it I am obviously supporting this proposal. Deletion proposals at full CfD where this situation applies are never questioned or opposed. I would just make it a new criterion, C2G, to avoid confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Why not start with 1 subcat; a main article plus either a songs sub-cat or an albums sub-cat? I think we have always deleted these at cfd but not always the 2 subcat case (which is at least gathering relevant material together). Oculi (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I do not remember any cases that were kept which had a main article plus songs and albums sub-cats. In those cases the above templates automatically interlink the sub-cats to each other and to the main article. Ideally "see also" links can be added in the main article to the albums and songs sub-cats, but this is unlikely to be important, as the article usually links to all the notable albums and songs already.

  I would like to broaden out the criteria to a main article plus any one or two sub-cats, provided that the article and the sub-cats have links to each other. This would require the nominator to manually interlink any sub-cats of other types e.g. members, songs written by, song recordings produced by, album covers.

  It would probably be safe to extend the criteria to 2 articles & 2 sub-cats, e.g. where a discography has been split from the main article; but we should start with 1 article & 2 sub-cats, and discuss this option later. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Strongly agree with the further explanation about the interlinked subcategories. I am fine with both extensions as well, both these cases are routinely deleted at Cfd too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  This should be really specific. The common categories/articles in these that are typically deleted have categories of Foo songs and Foo albums, the main article and, at times, a discography page. When there is a members category for a band, those categories have not been deleted in CfD, but what about a members category when the band only has only one other category (either songs or albums)? Or what if there is a list of awards page but no discography article? What if the only two subcategories are "Albums produced by" and "Songs written by", would that be speediable? I also think a musician's or band's template should not be categorized in an eponymous category, and if it is, can be removed from the category or ignored as part of a speedy deletion nom. Image and sound files, whether in subcategories (such as Foo album covers) or placed directly in the eponymous parent, are already going to be in the articles that are in other categories of the band (e.g. album covers in the album articles), should not be considered either. Are there cases where "Category:Foo" should exist with only the following content? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Category:Foo albums
• Category:Foo album covers
• Category:Foo audio samples
• Category:Foo songs
• Foo
• Foo discography
• Template:Foo

Emptying nominated categories

Quick question: I believe there are rules against emptying categories that have been nominated for deletion (or merging), but apart from WP:C2F (...provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination.), is there any other? I couldn't find any. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I don't know where it's written down, but it'd be considered out of process. This also applies to categories not nominated for deletion - you shouldn't empty them unless you are removed articles that don't fit in the category, i.e. it shouldn't be used as a way to bypass CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed here before. A lengthy example from 2020 was Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? TSventon (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon Oh wow! Pity that no consensus was reached on a wording and where to include it. Looks like a lot of unfinished business. The conversation evolved into an informal vote that was never closed, so it may be a lot of wasted time... Part of me wants to finish the job, the other part is seriously discouraged by the heap of stuff to trawl through. @Qwerfjkl Can we just go for a WP:CR, or not because it wasn't a formal discussion to begin with, and we should start over with an RfC or something?

At any rate, I was asking because yesterday I was writing a lengthy reply to someone who had nominated a category for deletion, which I didn't think was necessary. But as I was writing, the whole category was rapidly being emptied, which was really annoying and frustrating. It also happened before with Albania at the Turkvision Song Contest or something, which was nommed per WP:C2F against that very policy's criteria of not emptying categories before nominating. I want a simple rule that I can link to whenever I see someone emptying a nominated category out of process. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: Instead of an RfC, I could write an essay summarising previous precedents, incidents and text proposals about not emptying nominated categories? It's a step between an unwritten rule and an official rule, it's something people can link to, and it can be updated and perhaps eventually upgraded to an official rule. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, a CR of what? This discussion? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl, no, a request to close Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, that can't be closed because it wasn't an RfC and it has already been archived. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that confirms what I thought. Do think an essay would help, or should this really go to RfC? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Hi, I've been trying to set up an essay here: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process Do you think this might help? I've included some examples / cases studies under "precedents", but so far none of them appear to have led to sanctions. (I hope I'm not suggesting the editors involved should have been sanctioned, I'm just noting they weren't). Do you know cases where sanctions were taken? Otherwise I fear this remains a sort of 'unpunishable crime'. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I suggest you ask the CfD regulars, because I mostly close discussions. That said, it looks good to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been complaining about this for years, and while the essay is fine as far as it goes, really we need a clear determination that this is wrong, so that the language in it can be made less tentative, and it can be given a more official status. I'd completely forgotten that I started Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? back in the day - it's a great pity the draft there wasn't adopted. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod Hi, thanks for answering here! Would you like to give your feedback over at User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process#Request for feedback? I've been updating and refining the essay with lots of examples, discussions, proposals and decisions, including 4 cases in which people have actually been sanctioned for disruptive editing due to emptying categories. Even if there is no clear formal rule on what ECOOPing is, this should provide more than enough background to better deal with future cases, which most certainly do not necessarily need to go unpunished, as they have sometimes already been punished in the past. Most people just haven't been aware of it. I've had to dig through 20 years of archives, but, that's what I do best as a historian. Anyway, feel free to share feedback on the talk page! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Format of discussions should change

Currently in the CfD pages there is a heading of the date as a sub-heading 1, and each individual discussion has a sub-heading 2. For example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 8, has === July 8 ===, and the first discussion is ==== Category:People from Drogheda, County Down ====.

In order to facilitate discussions, I propose instead:

1. To do away with the date heading because it appears to serve no function, as each page is only for one day. If anything, add a lead.
2. Each individual discussion should have a heading, not a subheading, mainly to be able to subscribe to the discussion. In the above example, it would be == Category:People from Drogheda, County Down⁠==.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But due to transclusion of the pages and other technical reasons, that's unlikely to happen. There are typically underlying reasons for the processes at CfD. If you have questions about any of them, please feel free to ask. - jc37 20:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do tell me. I want to be educated about what's going on behind the scenes of the CfD format. Do you think it would be easier to change the format of the CfDs or to make a subscribe button for subsections? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

XfD processes are supported by bot work, among other things, so we should be careful when thinking about changing them.

As for WP:SUBSCRIBE, I'm probably not the person to ask about that, as I do not use it. One can add a page to their Watchlist, and watch for changes in that way. You can set your notifications and Watchlist options in Preferences. - jc37 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I used to watch pages for discussions. Problem was that in heavy traffic pages, it notifies about all new entries in all discussions, which became soon annoying to me. When the subscribe button arrived I was very pleased. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions for example is maintained by a bot. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The date heading level is used on Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/All current discussions#Current discussions. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

CfD mass nom notice

{{Cfd notice}} works when a single category is nominated, but what can be used for a mass nomination? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

C2D rewording

Considering that C2D is used not only for categories under a main article, but also for categories under a main template, or a main project page (e.g., WikiProjects). Hence, I think that C2D should be reworded from the current "Consistency with main article's name" to something more inclusive. Thoughts? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom, It could simply be "Consistency with main page's name"? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine. Might also need some wordsmithing with the last bullet point of WP:C2D. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy move of Category:Marine fauna of Southern Africa to Category:Marine fish of Southern Africa

@Couiros22: This should not have been moved as dolphins are not fish. It's quite possible that some of the similar categories requested also have non-fish, but even if they don't, they could in time have non-fish such as molluscs or corals added to them, so should remain. I believe that the fish categories should instead subcat from the fauna categories. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The easiest is to take the new category for CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the easiest is to restore Category:Marine fauna of Southern Africa, make it a container for the fish category, and then move the non-fish in the fish category to the fauna category. I have now done this. BD2412 T 18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixing a few category rename blunders

Hi, I nominated a set of categories to rename last month at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Enigmatic taxa, but have since found out just too late that I set the wrong new names for two of the categories:

• Propose renaming Category:Bird enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic mammal taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Mammal enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic bird taxa

As you can see the two target categories for these two are paired with the wrong original categories. Unfortunately since the discussion has already been closed, the bot has already gone through all these categories as of writing, and for whatever reason renamed the first one back shortly after (???). (Edit: and has renamed the second one to its correct target, is this bot being manually controlled or can it detect these kinds of errors?)

What's the best way to deal with this kind of error? Is there a process for fixing this kind of error straight away (I'm actually not sure if the speedy renaming criteria apply here though), or do these have to be sent back through Cfd all over again? (Honestly I'm a bit disappointed nobody else caught this error of mine, let alone before closure of the discussion) Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Best is to contact one of the admins who process the Working page. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fixed it for you without seeing this thread. And yes, the bot is manually controlled by an admin at WP:CFDW, me in this case. I'm disappointed with myself for not catching it until after I told the bot to do the move and it had already done it, and figured I should fix the problem by moving the first one back to the original name, then moving the second one to its correct name, then moving the first one back to its correct name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the intended

• Propose renaming Category:Bird enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic bird taxa

is still TBD? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hyphenation Expert Going by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working that rename is on its way I take it. Also thanks for informing me, I had no idea that was how CfD changes were organised until now. @Pppery And thanks for being on the case here, though I feel a bit silly for starting this mess I feel relieved to know it's being resolved already! Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's going to be done soon. That was the third rename in my remediation, which has to happen after the other two are done, which means three bot cycles. Given the amount of (unrelated) work I'm feeding to the bot each cycle takes a while. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The final rename has now been done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Notifying creator of category for a speedy merge request

Hi again, using Twinkle I just nominated a category (Category:Eogeometer‎, for those interested) for speedy merging because it meets C2F (one eponymous page). However, I found Twinkle didn't notify the article creator about this action, and nor can I find a suitable template for notifying an interested editor about speedy merging of a category (Template:Cfd notice doesn't seem suited as far as I can tell). Is there such a template to use? Or should I not worry about notifying the article creator in this case? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, the category has already been deleted now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn, Reading WP:CFDS, it deosn't seem like notifying the creator is a step. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Yeah, I didn't see it in there either, but I saw that the creator had been informed before about an attempted speedy deletion for the same category in the past. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

BIO's and BLP's in Antisemitism vs. Islamophobia categories

This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say, Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself.
I stumbled on this old discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories whose conclusion says what it says, and most of the subcats contain a Hatnote that alert editors what to do and how to use these cats and its subcats, but then I checked few random subcategories in Category:Racism (including above mentioned Antisemitism / Islamophobia in the UK) and it appears only those concerning Islamophobia are emptied and watched over. This discrepancy problem won't be easy to correct since it comprises who knows how many articles and subcategories, maybe many hundreds. Scratching post for now. This needs completely different angle of approach.౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cosmetic change

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.

• Propose deleting Category:Categories Category:Catgeories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: it is a good category. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: I do not like it. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: per nomination; {good reason}. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

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.

• Propose deleting Category:Categories Category:Catgeories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: it is a good category. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: I do not like it. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: per nomination; {good reason}. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

(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)

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)

And while we're at it, following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color as well. - jc37 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!). HouseBlaster^talk 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Men's) national football team categories

These categories were moved under C2D following page moves which were reversed before the categories were moved. The page moves have been reversed and a Requested Move is in progress so the category moves may need to be reversed if the articles are not moved again

• 56 national team categories were nominated as C2D here by Stevie fae Scotland at 15:59, 22 September 2023
• Example Category:Andorra national football team to Category:Andorra men's national football team – C2D after page move, Andorra men's national football team
• I noted that pages had been moved following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#National team RfC
• Liz noted that the Albania category was a redirect
• A requested move discussion for the team articles was opened at Talk:Afghanistan national football team#Requested move 23 September 2023 and the articles were moved back to their previous names by Amakuru
• The categories, excluding Albania, were moved by Ymblanter here at 07:38, 25 September 2023

TSventon (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It should have been 54 but yes. Apologies for assuming that the nomination would have been challenged at the time of reversion, had I known this was not the case I would have withdrawn. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TSventon and Stevie fae Scotland: I did discuss this with Ymblanter at User talk:Ymblanter#National football team categories and we agreed that to save the possibility of moving them back only to have to move them aqain, the reversion would be put on hold and would take place upon the closing of the ongoing RM, if indeed it is closed with a decision not to move the pages. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, thank you, it is good to know that the issue was already on the radar. @Stevie fae Scotland: I counted 56, but can see I was wrong. TSventon (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Qwerfjkl/How to close CfD discussions

I've started a draft for a tutorial on closing CfDs. It is by no means finished, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mass media by franchise

I have to wonder whether this entire category tree shouldn't be nuked. There generally won't be any notable "media" in a "franchise" that aren't "mass", and this category tree and its propagation down to things like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) mass media with subcats like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) films makes it very difficult to find the works that are completely central to the franchise to begin with. Plus all this extraneous injection of "(franchise)". It just led to a categorization editwar at Blade Runner, and there are probably other instances, but just making the categories a confusing and frustrating waste of time for readers is the main issue.

I'm opening this for some general discussion first before launching a large-scale CfD, in case there's some really, really compelling reason for this mess that I somehow can't see yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

C2F, for an eponymous category with no content but the eponym itself, is listed here as a speedy deletion criterion — but it is not available as a deletion rationale in the drop-down menu if I actually try to delete a category on those grounds, meaning that I have to manually come to the list of speedy deletion criteria to refresh my memory of what its section code even is before I can delete a category on those grounds. Is there any way to get it added to the drop-downs? Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NewdelrevCFD

Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalize X Minister in title for Categories by country?

Should the M be capitalized in Category:Foreign Ministers of Germany‎ or Category:Foreign ministers of Gabon. The categories are very inconsistent. Note, this also affects the equivalent categories for Defense Minister/minister. Naraht (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Naraht, the main article, Minister for Foreign Affairs (Germany), seems to mostly use Foreign Ministers. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl I'm just using Germany and Gabon as examples. See the lack of consistency in Category:Foreign_ministers_by_country.Naraht (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Naraht, well, there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in mainspace as well as cat4egory space, but Ministry of foreign affairs seems to use foreign ministers. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Naraht

Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns ... They are capitalized only in the following cases:

• When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
• When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural (my, DB1729's, emphasis), is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:

Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan.

The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it.

Note that for "president of the United States" or "prime minister of the United Kingdom", the name of the country remains capitalized even when the title is not, as it is always a proper noun. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs). — MOS:JOBTITLE

--DB1729^talk 15:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct, this should not be capitalized per our existing rules. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Restatement. So it is agreed that Category:Foreign Ministers of Germany‎ should be moved to Category:Foreign ministers of Germany and that it is correct for Gabon, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding. DB1729^talk 22:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Naraht, I can help wou with a mass nomination if you want. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Sure. Let's do Foreign Minster -> Foreign minister first. There are 64 hits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%2FForeign+Ministers+of%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns14=1 and as far as I can tell, all would need to be changed. Note, I'm still a little confused on what happens with "Ministers of Foreign Affairs of XXX". I *guess* the F&A get lowercased?Naraht (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Naraht, no problem. Would you mind writing out the rationale here, then I'll go ahead and create the nomination, tag all the category pages, notify the page creators etc? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl could you please do so on Germany and I will duplicate that for the other 63 using Autowikibrowser.Naraht (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a script for this. I've created the nomination. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Thank you. I thought that I'd be doing the tag & notify. And after this is done (presumably in a week?), I'll come back and propose similar moves for other ministerial jobs. I'd rather not propose too many prior to possible discussion on the pages.Naraht (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Rationale

All Categories starting with "Foreign Minister of" should be changed to "Foreign minister of" based on MOS:JOBTITLE since not about a single person as a Job Title.Naraht (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Should I move things to "opposed requests"?

If I !vote "oppose" to a Speedy, should I move that item into the "Opposed requests" section? Or will this be done according to a review / timed cleanup process? Thanks for the information. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Do not worry, we keep it there for some time and then, unless the issue has been resolved, somebody would move it down. Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Parent categories and other page content for merges

Before listing merges at WP:CFDW, please check whether parent categories or other page contents need to be merged. In this set (which happened to be from the Speedy page), some additional parents and portals needed to be merged. Unusually, for that set, there was a category header template, and the missing page content could be incorporated into that. Normally, any missing parents or other content have to be added manually. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)