Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2

message: Included in the archive was the poll ending in September, 2004, about whether or not to merge WP:CFD and WP:VFD.  The final result was no merger with the following final tally:
* No merger: 11
* Merge CFD with VFD: 1
* Merge with RfC: 1
The issues of unresolved votes and getting enough people to pay attention to WP:CFD were also raised.
: If VfD could be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and then reuse VfD for anything for deletion linkage (just links into AfD, CfD, TfD, IfD, RfD...) that should boost traffic. 132.205.15.42 04:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge CFD and VFD

message: One thing that would really help get the page size down (which would make working on it a lot easier - saves, rendering, etc would all be faster) would be to deal with some of the old items which have accrued long lists of comments. I don't hang out here enough to feel comfortable tackling what are obviously tricky ones, but if one of the regulars could (while the rest of us do the mundane stuff) that would really be a help in getting the size down. Noel (talk) 05:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a new list at the bottom of the page summarizing the outdated page contents.  Once we've started emptying the relevant categories, the corosponding discussions can be deleted.  (More likely than not, if you delete the discussion first, people complain when you start emptying the category.) --ssd
A suggestion - would it be better if this page was organised like the article vfd page - individual subpages for each category deletion candidate, so that comments can be posted on the separate pages rather than having to edit the main page each time?  Grutness|hello?  08:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was already discussed above, at #Large page! on the front and at unresolved. Noel (talk) 14:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops - sorry!  Grutness|hello? 
The reason this is particularly bad at the moment is that I have been out of town, and until recently I've been one of the only administrators to consistently work on taking care of this page. (There are some other folks who poke their heads in and some non-administrators who do excellent work.) I'll be back next week and then hopefully I can take care of the backlog. 
If you want to get an old discussion off the main page and you're not sure what the consensus is, then you can archive it at unresolved (it is generally better to resolve an issue, but when we have this kind of backlog, it's good to be able to just get a discussion off the page). I even made a little personal template to use on the archive paegs. (See User:Aranel/unresolved.) Anyone can archive old discussions. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chopping the page size down

message: Would it help, for organizational purposes here, to have tags to put on categories that are waiting to be emptied or moved? It might help to have a notice so that folks don't continue to use a doomed category. We could use the tags to create a sort of to-do list that would be independent of this page. This would be a lot easier to use for non-controversial moves and deletions—instead of removing an entry and adding it to the list at the bottom of the page requesting that it be emptied, then removing that entry later, we could just add the to-be-moved or to-be-emptied tag and remoev the entry here. 
I would find this useful, but of course I'm a bit obsessive about organization. (Which, I suppose, is why I enjoy working on categories in the first place.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Categories to be emptied]] and [[:Category:Categories to be moved]]? 

message: Why does WP:CFD put the newest at the top yet WP:IFD, WP:RFD, WP:PUI, WP:VFD, etc. add the newest to the bottom? Cburnett 17:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort order 

message: I destroyed by mistake the English version of page ATC code A02 (overwrite to translate into french; I tought I was in the French section.<BR>
Please restore the previous English version<BR>
I am very sorry<BR><BR>
Eras-mus 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ACCIDENTAL vandalism

message: For category titles that just have incorrect spelling or capitalization, I wonder whether if handling might be split off somehow from the more substantive changes. Some type of "speedy category rename" might be more efficient. Maurreen 06:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-controversial renamings

message: I just noticed the above mentioned page, and added the people who frequent here on that list.  Go ahead and add/edit your entry there if you have nto already!  --ssd 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Cleaning department]]

message: What does "Add the name of the new category and  to the category page for deletion." means? Am I supposed to add the name of the category to it's article text? Paranoid 17:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add the name of the new category? 

message: The precedents accumulating under Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved should probably be fed back into Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and subpages, at some point. -- Beland 07:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions reconciliations 

message: The Category:Czech weapons (enter in search box; using link puts this page in the category) page says it is listed here, but I don't see it.  It has in fact been renamed.
Weapons of the Czeck Republic is an idiotic category name for at least a couple of reasons:
* No "Czeck Republic" existed before 1993, yet the weapons slapped into this category did and most were gone before 1993.
* It is normally spelled Czech Republic.
* The Category:Czech weapons was already renamed with this silly name.
Gene Nygaard 14:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Category:Czech weapons? 

message: The following discussion has been moved here from cfd:delete me:
The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete:
*:category:industrialists; :category:industrialists by nationality; :category:Italian industrialists; :category:American industrialists. No objections were raised to merging these into the far more widely used :category:businesspeople and its subcats. I have emptied them. Wincoote 23:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Industrialists

message: CFD is now getting quite big. Uploading during peak hours often results in congestion and leads to the error message. Would it be possible to have this page restructured, like votes for deletion, with separate pages for each section?  — Instantnood 06:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
On the same note, I believe the page may become more legible if it is split into two pages - one for deleting categories and another for renaming them. The former is often subject to some discussion and the latter is usually pretty straightforward. Any thoughts on this?  Radiant_* 13:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
*I've noticed that renaming can be as contentious as deleting.  -Kbdank71 14:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with separating the renaming, and I agree that simple matters such as obvious capitalization or plurals shouldn't need a vote. But to broaden the topic a little, I don't understand why more of these questions are not handled on the individual category talk page. I don't really see a need for the consolidation we now have. Maurreen 15:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with separating CFD and CFR.  — Instantnood 12:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of the vfd-style subpages. I think it would be a good thing for this page.  Grutness|hello?  02:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: Popular songs was ignorantly deleted as it lacked a definition and non-music editors did not realize the obvious one, found at popular music. Perhaps the category should be renamed :Category:Popular music songs, but it should not have been deleted. Hyacinth 01:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular songs

message: (moved from CfD)
:Category:Consonant --> :Category:Consonants
:Bot, please (again, thanks).  --Kbdank71 16:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this is a really controvercial change, but why is this in Speedy?  I've looked at the original proposal discussion, and the policy page, and the only criteria that gained consensus were typos and capitalization.  Pluralization wasn't agreed upon .. --Azkar 18:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was cleaning out the last speedy, and had to add this for bot-work, and to be honest, I was too lazy at the time to put it in the section below.  Don't worry, this has been listed for the required seven days.  --Kbdank71 13:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Singular to plural was subject of some controversy. The aim was to list it for a week on  Wikipedia talk:Category renaming to see if there were any objections or discussion. There weren't any. But I'm not sure if that should be taken as a sign for consensus, since arguably few people have read it. Bottom line - if we want more 'speedy renaming' criteria (which seems useful) we should put up an obvious section for discussion. Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
--
Is this something we want to bring up again for discussion and vote?  --Kbdank71 13:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that a discussion and vote would be beneficial to establish consensus one way or the other. Thryduulf 13:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Rename

message: I'm a little confused. It appears that "News trade" was taken off the "Delete me" list without being deleted. Maurreen 07:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: News trade

message: A category is proposed to delete.  Five people vote, 3 to delete, 2 to keep. The 2 to keep feel strongly about it. After seven days someone (who voted to delete) deleted it.
I thought policy was that underexposed, and controversial deletes should be kept until further votes got a clear consensus? I don't think five votes gets you consensus when a single vote would change it. SchmuckyTheCat 02:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also a bit surprised when :Category:Female chess players was deleted with ten to delete and list, and six to keep, slightly short of a two thirds majority (but one can argue that replacing a category with a list is less drastic than outright deletion). Also, IMO a person who voted delete in a contentious debate ought to refrain from deleting the category. Which category were you thinking about? Sjakkalle 10:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You'd think if it were a controversial nomination, more than five people would vote.  Regardless, though, were you bringing up a theoretical situation, or were you alluding to an actual category that was deleted?  --Kbdank71 13:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: *:Category:Stinky Foods  I see the vote was four to delete, counting the nominator.  Still I don't consider that overwhelming. SchmuckyTheCat 13:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the discussion, three of the four also feel strongly about it.  Was it overwhelming?  No, four votes to two certainly isn't overwhelming.  It was up for seven days and got a grand total of six votes (at a 2 to 1 margin).  How much longer would it need to stay listed?  Would another week work?  How about two?  A month?  Should we wait for a 3 to 1 margin?  4 to 1?  And what is "overwhelming"?  Ten votes?  Thirty?  One hundred?  In my opinion, this wasn't controversial, not even close, and six votes at 2-1 was enough for a consensus.  --Kbdank71 13:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe advertising the delete proposal should go to the articles in the category, where a lot more people have watchlists. SchmuckyTheCat 17:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What counts for consensus

message: (Moved from CfD):
*:Category:Palestinian political parties  Ok'ed on March 16, never deleted
:I can't find where this was "OK'ed on March 16". I did find the discussion here , where there was a majority to keep it. -- uriber 19:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was part of a larger move:  Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Political parties  --Kbdank71 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This special case is fundamentally different than the other categories renamed as part of the larger plan, as Palestine is not a country, but a historical region. The political parties in question are not political parties in that region, but political parties established by Palestinians (in various places). This therefore deserved a separate discussion, which took place, with the result of a majority preferring to keep it as it is. Standards are good, but they should not be stubbornly applied where they are not applicable. -- uriber 21:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian political parties

message: I'm moving this discussion from the speedy rename section to preserve.
:*:Category:Greek Currencies should be renamed to Category:Greek currencies
:**Why not :Category:Currencies of Greece? RedWolf 02:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:***One, a matter of semantics, the ancient currencies were Greek (of the Greek people) but not "of Greece" (because there was no Greek state, and because many currencies were used by colonies outside of Greece). Second, a matter of formatting; if all currency categories were in the "Currency of xxx" format, then "European currencies" would have all its subcategories grouped under "C".Sysin 20:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ***If you wish to make that nomination, I'd say you should remove this from the speedy rename section, and list it in the main section.  --Azkar 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Currencies 

message: User:Azkar proposed () that "Conversions from singular to plural (or back)" be added to the Speedy Renaming criteria. I second the motion, and am listing it here for discussion and consensus. If there are no objections within one week, it should be instated as such. Radiant_* 08:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
*No objection here.  --Kbdank71 13:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy renaming of plurals 

message: The consensus from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4 is to rename the category, but there were a couple of different suggestions being bantered around.  I thought one of the better ones was :Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people. This was by User:Kbdank71
Could discussion on this please continue further up this page where the matter is already being discussed. Part of the problem has been the number of different locations this to'ing and fro'ing has got on WP. Thanks. ps. "LGBT people" will work a lot beter than having it spelt out and possible capitalisation and ordering issues causing problems. --Vamp:Willow 14:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people]] 

message: Was there a reason for changing the titles on CfD?  --Kbdank71 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Nesting. Plus to be consistant with WP:TFD et al - SoM 19:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles on CFD 

message: There is an off by one error in the transcludes.  Click on Edit for "Pseudo-protected" and I find myself editing "Navigational Rallying", etc.  Some of the categories aren't listed on the main CfD page because of this.  Please to be fixing.
*Have you tried clicking on "Purge the cache" before trying to edit?  I've noticed that sometimes a recent edit to a transcluded page won't show up for a while.  Purging always fixed things for me.  --Kbdank71 17:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in transcludes

message: To counter instruction creep and repetitive discussion, I would like to propose the following:
if a category is generated by a template (e.g. :Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo Stub), and that template is deleted by regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template.
*I would like to put this up for vote at WP:CSD, but first I'd like to garner some feedback here as to its appropriateness and wording. Radiant_* 07:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
**Sounds reasonable to me, especially if the proposed Stubs for deletion get approval. Thryduulf 08:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy category deletion

message: I finally worked out it should be 
====heading level 4====
Paul foord 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would be useful to indicate heading level for new entries 

message: Paul foord 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: heading level 4

message: This is a notification that NekoDaemon will now automatically archive the 7 day ago transinclude and turn it into a link into the Old infobox. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in NekoDaemon 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies has not been updated to document the newfangled transcluded way of doing things, so I'm confused as to where I can find "categories that it has been decided that they should be deleted but they haven't yet" and "discussions that have passed the normal closure period but haven't been adjudicated yet". -- Beland 01:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: A number of weeks ago, after a lengthy vote and discussion, :Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted. However, I have just noticed that there is still this category: :Category:Islamic terrorist organizations, which would have been a subcategory of the other. Why wasn't this also deleted? Don't tell me we have to have a separate vote on every subcategory; there can't possibly be a rationale for deleting the parent category and not its offspring. -- Viajero 02:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Islamic terrorist organizations 

message: Template:cfd top says: This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the category below, but it actually deals with the debate about the category listed above. I'd have changed the wording myself, but thought I'd bring it up for comment here first. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cfd top misworded

message: After a proposal for a "stub messages for deletion" page was met with generally positive sentiments on the Village Pump, I have written up a draft in my userspace:
User:Grm wnr/SfD draft
Since this infringes on the jurisdiction of this page (Stub messages consist of a template and a category), you might want to leave any comments/praises/flames/general disagreement on the talk page. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub messages for deletion 

message: Hey, folks.  I haven't seen Kbdank71 around in a few days, so I'm going to go ahead and close some of the older discussions.  Just giving a brief look at the bottom of the page, there are a few discussions that don't really look like they're finished yet.  Since we're getting quite a bit of clutter, though, with the discussions that are closed, I'm going to try and tidy things up a bit.
I'm going to create a new section called "Unresolved after seven days" (or something like that - I haven't decided).  For the daily pages that have unresolved discussions, I'm going to move the unresolved discussions into a subpage of that subpage (for example, /Log/2005 May 20/Unresolved).  I'll then transclude the unresolved subpages under the above mentioned section on the main CfD page, and also into the main daily log page.  In theory, this will allow us to see the unresolved discussion on the main page without having to mess about with ones that are resolved, and will also allow someone viewing one of the daily logs to see all the discussions, resolved or not.
Just in case anyone is wondering what the hell I'm up to ... :)  --Azkar 01:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing