Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

message: Background: Some months ago, I had a category which I created several years ago nominated for a WP:C1 speedy deletion.  I was lucky enough to notice this in time.  It took me a couple of hours to find out what had happen.  (It was in high probability due to a pure editing mistake; someone had overwritten the category while adding another (unrelated) one to the only member article.)  I fixed this, but also asked for tools for finding newly emptied categories, and their contents.  I got good answers ( thanks again). Liz, who tipped me about the fairly recent tool User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer (CCV), which actually works even better than she claimed. ( Have you improved your code recently?) She also wrote
::I'll just add that because going to CFD can be a laborious prospect (discussions are sometimes open for weeks or even months before they are closed), it's not uncommon for editors, even those who work extensively with categories, to just empty out categories so they will be tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion even though this process is discouraged. It's just much faster so it is tempting for many editors to just do this themselves rather than having a deletion or rename discussion at CFD. I hope this helps with any questions you had.
(For further details, se my and Explicit's talk pages.)
Experimental investigation: For the given reasons, last Thursday (2023-11-30), I decided to check precisely how some recently empty (or emptied) categories were treated. I thus checked all categories then listed on the WP:Database reports/Empty categories, which were not yet deleted.  As far as I remember, there were less than 10 items; and all of them were tagged for WP:C1 deletion by Liz.  However, three of them were recently emptied.  All three had existed (and had had content until recently, but probably sparse) for several years, and thus probably might be counted among the "not uncommon but discouraged" cases Liz mentioned (if I understood this comments correctly).  I think that in at least two of the three cases a "more correct" procedure would have been to nominate the categories for deletion for explicit reasons, without (or possibly in parallel to) emptying them.
At the same time, I do appreciate the diligent maintenance and edits done by e. g. Liz and Explicit; and I do understand that their workloads may be increased by following such procedures—especially when it would include putting back the recently removed content.  I also looked briefly at the discussion example Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?, provided by TSventon.  However, in that case, much of the opposition to "stricter procedures" seemed to be related to a wish to be able to deal quickly with recently added (and according to an experienced user improper) categories.  I think that this is a valid point (altough I also think that trying not to bite newbies unduly sometimes could motivate a slightly slower provcedure).  However, none of the three Thursday examples were of this kind; the categories were old and had adequate content.
The examples: For reference I give the three examples, and some suggestions for alternative procedures.
*:Category:Mayors of Breslau: Created and populated 2019 by  content (2 articles) moved to :Category:Mayors of Wrocław by  tagged for deletion (by Liz) within two hours.  In this case, the question is to what extent a city with different names in several languages (in this case, German and Polnish) should be treated under the same or different names depending on which country had the "ownership" at different times.  Now, Breslau redirects to Wroclaw; and even when the article category was created, HerkusMonte put it in the :Category:Politicians from Wrocław.  Factually, I agree with Artemis Andromeda's move; but I think that it would have been more proper to ask for a speedy merge per WP:C2D.  (As I understand it, this would involve making an item with no further motivation at Categories for discussion#Current requests Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Current requests, informing the category creator, and then waiting a week before moving the content and perhaps deleting the category, provided no one does oppose the category merge.  After the completion, tough, possibly, one should put a "category redirect" box on the category, rather than deleting.  Reason: I checked dewiki, and there I found quite a bunch of articles about various mayors of Breslau/Wrocław from the time of German rule.  A "category redirect" should lessen the risk that the category is recreated, when someone translates some of these articles to enwiki.  As a minimum, if the category is deleted, the motivation for the deletion should not be left blank or (IMHO not quite truthfully) just refer to WP:C1, but instead state e. g. "Merged into :Category:Mayors of Wrocław".
*:Category:Courts and tribunals disestablished in 1928: Created and populated 2020 by  with a categorisation of the redirect United States District Court for the District of Indiana.  All four categories for this redir were removed by Wow; within two hours, the category which thereby was emptied was tagged for deletion.In this case, I do not know why Wow removed the categories (without explanation).   Was there a specific reason for your edit here; or do you in general dislike categorisation of redirects?  (In the latter case, I disagree.  There are reasons for the existence of the specific tagging of redir categorisation; and I think that this was one of the examples for which this option is intended.  IMO, it would be ridiculous to place a target list in all the relevant categories for its members; but still such categories may be used as search tools, and therefore in some natural manner should provide a way to find that content.  Categorisation of redirects often is a good way to achieve this.)Since I see that Liz undid some similar edits of Wow's (for California or Florida in lieu of Indiana) the other day; I did the same here (and consequently also removed your db-catempty, Liz).  There are a bunch of these redirs to the same target; preferrably, they should be treated similarly, either removing all these categorisations of redirs, or adding such categories for the ones missing them.
*:Category:Yorkton Film Festival: Factually, this is the most interesting example.  Superficially, it seems to be created and populated 2020 by  and have its two member articles deleted by Liz on November 25, who waited 5 days before tagging it for deletion.  (Actually, Bearcat changed the preexisting :Category:Yorkton to the :Category:Yorkton Film Festival, but Liz just deleted the latter without restoring the former.)  However, this was not the most interesting content, and not the most dramatic deletions.  It took a while to deduce the history, which also involves another emptying-and-deletion category.As far as I succeeded to figure it out, Yorkton is a not very large Canadian town, which has housed a regularly recurring film festival since 1950.  The festival has changed its content (e. g., documentary or short films) and scope (international or national) several times; but it never was just a local event.  Several prices have been given in various categories; some determined by public votes at the event, some by a local festival committe.  There some by the National Film Board of Canada, which actually has been involved in the festivals in one or another way from the very beginning.  I do not get the impression that these festivals have the same general interest as some other (more mainstream?) Canadian film festivals, though.In 2020, LorriBrown created (mostly) or expanded (in a few cases) some fifteen pages about the various prices distributed at the festival; see the list at the bottom of his user page. These were collected in :Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards, a category that I guess was created by Bearcat in 2020; (is that a good guess?); I cannot know, since it was deleated, and I'm not an administrator (in this project).  Likewise, the tool CCV seems not to work for non-existing categories.  The new articles in general contained a general introduction, describing the origin and scope of the price, and the institution or group of people behind it, et cetera; followed by a list of the winners. Two examples: Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Comedy (one of the 'ordinary' categories) and Kathleen Shannon Award (a National Film Board price).However, in the beginning of November, User:162 etc. tagged the whole buch of articles for "merging" into Yorkton Film Festival, directing the discussion to Talk:Yorkton Film Festival#Merging everything in Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards.  The only comment came from User:Zenomonoz (after two weeks), who concurred, referring to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and advised 162 etc. to proceed directly.  (Zenomonoz talks about one article rather than fifteen; but most of the articles indeed are fairly similar.)  I'm not sure this was the best advise; and I do not like the way it was followed.Actually, User:162 etc. replaced all the articles by (raw, untemplated, uncategorised) redirs, rather than performing any merge.  Nothing was modified in the target article.  (The user has done some similar "deletion-merges" earlier.  However, I do not in any way want to give a false impression that this would be due to anything else that a wish to improve Wikipedia.  I've followed some of the activities of 162 etc., and find the user contributing in a rather positive manner; often with good results, but also at least once missing some details.  E. g., it would be incorrect to claim that there was much content in the deleted-directed articles not already present in the redir targets, except for the lists of winners; and things like creating circular links and deleting appropriate categories are easy to miss, I think.  At least, I make such mistakes myself, now and then.)  As an effect, the section Yorkton Film Festival#Golden Sheaf Award categories now gives a false impression; it consists of two lists of awards, without any comments (or e. g. start years), but the reader "sees" that 15 of the titles have links to separate articles, where more information could be gained.  In reality, since November 22, all these links are circular ones, to the Yorkton Film Festival itself (and not even to a relevant subsection).I do not know if 162 etc. also removed the awards category from :Category:Yorkton Film Festival the same day.  This has some importance for calculating how long the latter category has ben empty.  Was it from the day Liz removed the last two articles, or from the day she deleted the (former or actual?) subcategory (November 29)?  Anyhow, after the massive content deletion was effected, the user Bearcat (who seems not to have been informed, probably since this technically was just a "merge" proposal) indeed has reacted; see Talk:Yorkton Film Festival#.IMHO, there are some major questions of importance for the film project (and, of course, others interested enough), related to the concept "major (film) awards"; actually, Bearcat started (and, so far, ended) a discussion of this last spring at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Notability on the basis of awards.  I suspect that the Yorkton festival is an appropriate test case.  (No one has suggested that it should not satisfy WP:GNG—and I'm convinced it does.  Does it follow that its rewards should be treated as "major", in the sense that the award winners should be listed?)Therefore,  I'd like to ask you if you have some principal reason for removing these categories; and, if not, whether you would restore :Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards, and let me restore the pre-redir versions of its member articles.  We then could ask for input from the 'film guys'.  The end result could be a new list deletion en masse, or retaining the restored (pretty well-sourced) versions, or something in between (e. g., restoring the full Kathleen Shannon Award and Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Best of Festival awards, but make one article with short sections for the others, but in these presenting winner names only to the extent there are specific reasons).  This general awards article could gain quite a bit by skipping parallel text, I think.However, such a discussion would not concern categories more than peripherically.  When it is (reasonably) finished (if this is possible in the WP:-), then there might be some minor consequences for categories; not the other way around. JoergenB (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that redirects could be categorized since I usually don't see redirects with categories. I'll try to remember this now. Wow (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  Well, if you happen to see some category member in a (blue but) slanted font, then it's probably a redir.  If you click it, you'll get to its target.  Best, JoergenB (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (One example is that category you accidentally emptied, :Category:Courts and tribunals disestablished in 1928.) JoergenB (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The Courts and tribunals example has turned out to be due to a misunderstanding, and thus is resolved.  I've had no responses for the two other examples; and therefore now have modified the categories and category contents as I found most reasonable; vide supra.  (The main Yorkton discussion definitely should be made elsewhere, though.) JoergenB (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy nomination of just emptied categories 

message: There is a category :Category:Films about fraternities and sororities. If a film only contains mentions of a sorority (like, I believe Insecticidal may), or only contains mentions of a fraternity like Batch '81, should those have to be split out into separate categories? It seems messy...Naraht (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that :Category:Sororities is a subcategory of :Category:Fraternities and sororities, which in its turn is a subcategory of :Category:Fraternities.  This doesn't seem very logical; more as an effect of terms with floating meanings.  (Are "sororities" examples of "fraternities" in the broad sense "student organisations"; or are "sororities" and "fraternities" completely disjoint items, as examples of strictly sex-segregated organisations?) JoergenB (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:X about Y and Z (Both Y & Z needed?) 

message: The category was speedy moved to :Category:Non-free images of film posters, however, about 4K files have the category added by a template. Would it be possible to recruit  bot to replace in every file  with ? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in this category replacement is needed:  with  Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the TV category using WP:JWB, but for the film cat let's put a switch in the template. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Hang on, we are doing this the hard way! Since 2021,  will resolve redirects. Just leave a redirect permanently at the old name, and wait for the members to update themselves (or run null edits on them all). – Fayenatic London 10:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

text: In fact :Category:Fair use images of movie posters was already redirected to :Category:Fair use images of film posters. I updated that redirect, and now the job's done. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Files at [[:Category:Fair use images of film posters]] 

message: :Category:Roman Catholics has :Category:Former Roman Catholics as a sub-category, which seems to be a contradiction in terms. You can't be both a Roman Catholic and a former Roman Catholic, at the same time. Do I just remove the sub-cat from the main category; or does a discussion need to take place? And if so, what type of discussion? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the category is fine as it is and covers current and former Roman Catholics. Occupational categories such as :Category:Educators similarly include current and former educators. TSventon (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example is :Category:Association of College Honor Societies which contains :Category:Former members of Association of College Honor Societies.Naraht (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

text: How could this category not include people like Martin Luther or Henry VIII … who are famous for leaving the Church? Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It does make sense to me that they be added.Naraht (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also concerned that the category is NONDEFINING for many of those who ARE categorized.  Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Surely you can't be both a Roman Catholic and a former Roman Catholic at the same time, though? Schrodinger's Catholic? Should the sub-category not just be promoted to stand-alone status, problem solved? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are intended to help readers find articles, and reflect characteristics of the subjects at different points in time. :Category:Former Roman Catholics as a sub-category of :Category:Roman Catholics seems to be the standard arrangement for :Category:People by former religion. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory categories 

message: At some point an editor or editors tried (I've since reverted) adding Wales, England & Scotland to Category:Countries in Europe. In order to avoid this happening again? We should have the category renamed (i.e. moved) Category:Sovereign states in Europe. Indeed we should do this for 'all' Categories of countries. Change'em from 'countries' to 'sovereign states'. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Countries in X change to Sovereign states in X 

message: If a category was previously considered and deleted, can it be reconsidered and undeleted? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If it's been a long time (several years) since the CfD and the reasoning from the CfD clearly no longer holds, a category can usually be re-created without issue. But if it's more recent, or if the situation isn't clear, the safest route I think would be to open a WP:deletion review to discuss whether the previous consensus still holds. In any case, the category would have to be manually re-populated. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Paul 012 what should if the deletion review does not work in favor of undeleting? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases such an outcome probably indicates that consensus is against re-creating such a category, and that should be respected. There may be exceptions, such as a case being misunderstood, but the way forward will depend on the exact circumstances. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconsider & Undelete 

message: I’m in mobile right now and can’t list this category: :Category:XMAG (magazine), which is pointless and has article content in it, and only one page. BhamBoi (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please list a cat for deletion 

message: This CSD request is incorrect and should never have been approved; the main article is at VfL Bochum and so all categories should be at .
Please can the moves be reverted and the old categories restored on articles? GiantSnowman 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will submit the request for a reverse speedy move back for the categories. Geregen2 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfL Bochum 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes  about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Bump XfD heading sizes|Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) §&nbsp;Bump XfD heading sizes]] 

message: Following the British, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cats, which have now all been moved from Queen's Counsel to King's Counsel, shouldn't the same be done for this category?
Thanks, --NSH001 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: NSH001, WP:CFDS? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, already done. That was just me being a lazy bastard (not having used the process for some time) and hoping someone would do it for me. Anyway, I've done it now. --NSH001 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Irish Queen's Counsel 

message: The category :Category:2023 in horse racing is included into :Category:2023 in equestrian which has been deleted and moved to :Category:2023 in equestrian sports. (The same problem is for every year). I tried to find which template which sets the category but I can not see where it is. Could someone help me please? It probably requires just one edit for every year in some template. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:2023 in horse racing]] 

message: I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories. 
What do you think about upmerging all team categories in :Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.
Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with :Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there are some categories with over 10 entries, and these are probably legit, and there are others with two or three, these can be upmerged. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ymblanter, the size isn't what I meant. I think these are trivial because most of these are former major league players so short minor league coaching stints - since minor leagues coaches are shifted around a lot in the farm system of a major league team - aren't defining to their career. Does that make sense? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but still needs obviously to go through CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ymblanter, of course. I put two categories up before because the teams were defunct and had one article in each - and hence not likely to grow - so I'm just waiting for that to close. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor league coaches by team 

message: I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.
Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @Smasongarrison, @HouseBlaster, @Qwerfjkl. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a backlog at WT:CFDW; it will be sorted eventually. WP:NODEADLINE is applicable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reply. I was concerned that it may have been a bot issue (Mason suggested it might be) or something else as, usually, these go through within a week or some and there are a lot that have been stalled for over a month (and some even earlier). Hence why I brought it up. But there isn't any issue then I understand. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed lack of admins who add closed nominations to the page for bot. It does not help much that I am leaving for holidays today, but we will eventually sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Enjoy your holiday! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing this to me User:Pppery; I wasn't aware that there was a backlog. Apologies for pressing the issue! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cfds not going through 

message: :Category:Chemical Biology has been tagged for CfD, but has no corresponding discussion ("this category's entry"). This seems to be a straight-forward duplicate of :Category:Chemical biology, but I'm not familiar with CfD or categories in general. Should this be renominated or can this be merged/redirected with no discussion as uncontroversial?  ― Synpath 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: From  and Special:Contributions/ScienceChemBio, it looks like User:ScienceChemBio hasn't followed the instructions for the nomination to the end. A possible solution could be to replace content of page :Category:Chemical Biology with . —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, I have done this after skimming over some of the speedy merge criteria for CfD. It seems to qualify for WP:C2A and WP:C2D, but bots will clean up it up anyways per the info at the category redirect template. No fuss, thanks again.  ― Synpath 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw no reason to keep the redirect, so I have deleted it. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, my sensibilities probably skew too much to RfD where the alternate captilization could be considered helpful as 'chemical biology' appears often enough as a proper noun in university course titles and textbooks.  ― Synpath 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed nomination at [[:Category:Chemical Biology]] 

message: The top half of the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.
The opposite approach is used on WP:RFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:BN, all of which have subpages for their "static", almost "unchanging" parts. E.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. In case of RFD, it can be very useful to see the history of the changes to the instructions/procedure separately from changes to the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Aside from taking every text snippet to wikiblame, are there any other ways of looking at how instructions and procedure of WP:CFD/S changed over time? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria used to be at WP:CFSD rather than WP:CFDS until 2016. Since then, you can search the archives of this talk page for "speedy criteria" if that's what interests you, as changes are generally proposed here before implementation. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! The content removed from WP:CFSD in Special:Diff/749906670 was added to WP:CFDS in Special:Diff/749906249. Prior to that it was a section transclusion. Since then quite a lot changed: Special:Diff/749906249/1221394590. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of instruction changes of [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy]] 

message: I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely...:Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to :Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :) DonIago (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've opened the CfD on this. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass-renaming (probably) needed 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues.  Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:WT:Deletion process#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues|WT:Deletion process §&nbsp;Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues]]