Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.

Regional English Spellings with the WP:C2A and WP:C2C Speedy Criteria[edit]

  • C2A Typographic and spelling 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.
  • C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree ... 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).
  • My Interpretation My assumption was always that this criteria was usable for imposing Australian English spellings onto Australian specific categories and that the qualification was to prevent, say, an American editor from speedy nominating Canadian categories to match the American spellings. That way, we don't need to do a full CFD nomination when there is a clear regional spelling variation but we protect a kind of spelling imperialism. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you think? @Sawol, Armbrust, and AusLondonder:Several recent nominations have been opposed though due to different interpretations of the criteria. What do we think this last sentence means? What do we think it should say?
I totally agree, User:RevelationDirect. I've used Speedy CFD in such cases before without opposition. I always interpreted C2A and C2C that way. I think it is important to protect regional spelling differences, and ensure, for example, American English is not imposed on articles and categories related to India, which teaches and uses British spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not viewing the speedy page very regularly so I'm just curious, what is the alternative interpretation? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Marcocapelle: The alternative interpretation seems to be that any change in regional spelling (organization to organisation in former British colonies) inherently needs to go to a full CFD because there is not a single spelling in that category tree. For examples, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#On hold pending other discussion and the last two nominations in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 18. (@Armbrust:, If I misrepresented/misinterpreted your perspective, please delete my comment and replace it with your own.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I asked about the alternative because frankly I didn't see any room for an alternative interpretation. The guideline seems so obvious in this respect that there's really no value in having a full discussion about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
        • There is no need that every such change go through a speedy discussion, but the category three has to use the proposed spelling throughout the tree. Sometimes this isn't the case, and than a full CFD is needed. (The Myanmar category tree has hundreds of sub-categories, and checking every one of them for what variation of English is really not easy.) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Armbrust: Taking in mind the reactions of all other editors, is it possible to reach a reasonable compromise here? For example can we agree that it can go through speedy if all parent categories, all sibling categories and all child categories of the nominated category use the same spelling (while only the nominated category uses a different spelling)? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that speedy can be used in these cases. The key phrase I believe is "if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C." This would be the case in changing an Australian-specific category to Australian English spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Question @Armbrust: At least among the editors in this discussion, there is a consensus that the current policy for WP:CFDS allow for enforcing regional English spellings within countries that have clear preferences. Are you comfortable withdrawing your objection to this speedy nomination or do you still have policy concerns?RevelationDirect (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I too agree that speedy should be used here. The point of the prohibition is to prevent (alliteration!) renames that wouldn't necessarily be in line with local spelling, e.g. "Harbours in Ohio" to "Harbors in Ohio", and renames that aren't tied to a specific English variety, e.g. "Tires" to "Tyres". not considered errors is definitely not meant to prevent WP:TIES-related renames. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures of men and Category:Sculptures of women[edit]

I am not sure which template to use, but I think we should discuss these two categories and whether they are 1) necessary or 2) named appropriately. Sculptures of people (and usually animals) are often called statues. Are Category:Statues of men and Category:Statues of women more appropriate, or even encyclopedic? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Statue" is a subset of sculpture, typically understood to be life size or larger, freestanding and fully in the round (i.e., not in relief), and of more durable materials such as stone or metal. "Sculpture" would embrace any carving without those limitations. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, then perhaps I will create subcategories by country/state, otherwise these categories will eventually reach thousands of entries each. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not sure I really buy that definition of statue, as to size. Lots of statues are smaller than life size. If they're small enough to put on a bookshelf we call them statuettes, but a 1/2-scale statue of a person or horse would usually still be called a statue. They're very common in gardens, and catalog[ue]s that supply them for this market usually call them "statues" not "statuettes". That said, I agree that "sculpture" is more inclusive, and we wouldn't want to rename in this way, though "statues" subcats of the "sculptures" categories probably should exist.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it might be best to include Category:Statues of men as a subcategory of Category:Sculptures of men. In the meantime, I am going through sculpture categories and marking those of men and women with appropriate categories. They can always be diverted to subcategories once created. I might also point out that there are many sculptures of children, so I am not sure if somehow conveying male vs. female is better than men vs. women. (?) ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Making it easier to list containerizations, etc.[edit]

I've tweaked the templates and instructions to make it easier to list containerizations and other more unusual discussions, by using {{subst:cfd}}, or whatever.

This was previously only possible by subst'ing an existing template, then modifying it after the fact.

Uses of |type= will cause categorization in Category:Categories for general discussion for want of a better place. No bots are doing anything with it at present.

If would be possible to constrain this to a list of acceptable values of |type=, using #switch, and to more specifically categorize them, if this is desired.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How to tag stub templates being CfDed?[edit]

In addition to handling categories, WP:CFD handles the workload that WP:SFD used to handle: stub categories (obviously), but also stub templates. This in itself is not a problem.

It's clear what to do to nominate a stub category (use {{cfd}}), but there doesn't seem to be a clear description of how to nominate a stub template for deletion (e.g. see TfD talk recently). This used to use {{sfd-t}} and {{sfd-r}} back in the days when SfD still existed. Those templates still exist nowadays (and there was TfD consensus to keep them around), but they seem to have been blanked since (and thus aren't particularly useful for CfD tagging).

Are the old SfD templates still the correct way to nominate a stub template for deletion? If so, they should probably be mentioned in the CfD header, and unblanked (possibly with tweaks to work with the CfD process). If not, what's the correct alternative? {{cfd}} itself doesn't work very well on a template (for obvious reasons). --ais523 07:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

See the TfD talk you referred to. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


I nominated a bunch of categories for speedy renaming a week ago. There were formal objections, so they didn't go through. After sitting in the "Opposed" section for a couple of days, they were removed by Armbrust as "stale". Why weren't they moved to a full discussion? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of the instructions at WP:CFDS (beginning with "Contested requests become stale ..."). It's no one's responsibility to move opposed speedies to a full discussion, and if no one does it, the categories get removed from WP:CFDS—I think it's generally done seven days after there are no further edits. If you, as the nominator, want to pursue it as a full discussion, you should start that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone looking for a speedy category rename project to work on?[edit]

Is anyone looking for a speedy category rename project to work on? In this discussion", the by-country "visitor attractions" categories were renamed to "tourist attractions". However, there is still a mountain of categories for subnational entities (states, provinces, districts, regions, municipalities, cities, etc.) that are currently named "visitor attractions". These can easily be found by searching the subcategories of the top level country categories in Category:Tourist attractions by country. It will be a big job to get them all nominated and changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)