Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CFD)
See also: WT:CFD/W, WT:CAT, and WT:CATP
See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User and WT:CFD/W/M
Shortcut
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 34 34
TfD 0 0 0 7 7
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 2 45 47
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Cosmetic change

[edit]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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!). HouseBlastertalk 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to  LightCyan ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:

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

Courtesy pings to some CfD regulars as well as participants in the above discussion: @AHI-3000, Cremastra, Fayenatic london, Jc37, LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, SilverLocust, Smasongarrison, SWinxy, ToadetteEdit, Ymblanter, and Zxcvbnm. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no problem with the current colour. The first proposal caf0f2 strikes me as a bit grubby, less pleasing on the eye. LightCyan is cleaner than that, on all of my devices, and I could live with it. However, it has this disadvantage: because dark mode has no effect on browser pages (or project/category pages in the Wikipedia app), I occasionally invert the colours on my tablet (triple-click on iPads), and in that presentation LightCyan, Azure and Lavender are almost indistinguishable from white, whereas the current bff9fc and caf0f2 are clearly distinct. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So would PaleTurquoise be closer to what you would be looking for? - jc37 01:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, PaleTurquoise is dark enough that it shows up (as lighter) on an inverted-colour iPad. But in normal viewing, I find that blue links stand out less clearly against it than they the do against the current bff9fc. I would therefore prefer to stay put. Of course, if there's a majority in favour of change, I'll live with it; it's not a big deal to me. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see it a named colour rather than merely a value. But otherwise, as long as it meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility (and your concerns), than I'm pretty much fine any-which-way. - jc37 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra, this could probably do for some reconsideration with the upcoming dark mode changes. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, dark mode. Dark mode will affect the colours of all the XfD boxes, so what I'd suggest, if possible, is to have the colours be hsla (with transparency) rather than RGB so that it just tints the background. Cremastra (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

[edit]

 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)[reply]

Better integration between closing RMs and this page

[edit]

There really needs to be better integration between closing RMs and notifying this page (or a new central cleanup page) of the close. I stumbled across Talk:Alborz province#Requested move 24 January 2022, which seems that had no follow up work done to articles, sub-articles and categories. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopenings

[edit]

Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).

The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.

In theory, Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).

Moreover, I didn't know that all editors could challenge a closure and request a reopening at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and that this was regular practice.

  • Compare, for example, the standard statement after the closure of every CfD: ... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as an appropriate discussion page.
  • Besides, another regular practice (that I have followed as well) is going to the closing admin's personal talk page to request a reopening if I think there has been a procedural mistake.
  • Finally, afaik, deletion review is not used very often for categories, nor are category talk pages. Often, people may take a category with a issue to CFD, without necessarily knowing a solution yet - just to draw attention to the issue for CFD regulars to read; because they know it's unlikely that cat talk pages are on watchlists of many people.
  • So, this standard message suggesting venues for "subsequent comments" (including requesting reopenings) seems to differ very much from actual practice, and isn't very helpful.

(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)

So:

  • Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?
  • Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.

Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, perhaps I could ask for your opinion as a start? NLeeuw (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: I do not have an issue with stipulation #3. The only thing that we should clearly avoid is that it leads to forumshopping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How could stipulation #3 lead to forumshopping, then? NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.
      Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me.[Joke] NLeeuw (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participation is often much thinner at CFD than at AFD. For several years, CFD was being closed rather slowly, so there was ample time to notice and participate if interested. Recently we have gained more active closers who are generally closing CFDs after 7 days, and I am therefore inclined to reopen given almost any request, so that a point of view may be aired fully in a traceable location. The request may be made on the closer's talk page or any other page. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london Thanks for your belated reply. Could you explain how participation relates to the 2 questions I posed above? NLeeuw (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point of stipulation #3 above is that if a discussion appears to have been closed prematurely, it should be reopened on request. This is also behind my explanation about participation.
    I have seen examples over the last year where CFDs have been closed after 7 days even though there was recent ongoing discussion which had not petered out, so I would have left them open for longer. In other words, premature closure definitely happens.
    Another reason that I have been easy about reopening CFDs is that there is often a delay between closing and implementing them. If the request arrives before implementation, then it is easy to reopen them.
    As for your questions, then: Q1 – Yes, in the case of closures that have not yet been implemented. Stipulation #3 should be softened in the case of CFD as category nominations gain less attention and therefore less participation. Q2 then becomes unnecessary. Once the decision has been implemented, then it's up to the closer to decide whether to reopen it or point to WP:DRV/WP:MRV. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response! I do understand that low CFD participation can sometimes make the decision process practically different from AFDs, but I see several concerns as well. I'll re-read and consider everything carefully before I reply, as this is a bit of a complicated issue. Good night for now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburbs of Kalgoorlie-Boulder

[edit]

The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany and German Confederation

[edit]

I will not discuss the merits of the many deletions, upmerges, renames, ... of the categories related to these two names, as I fundamentally disagree with the years-long campaign to erase current and common names of places to restrict categories solely to the ultra-precise historical names exclusively, for no benefit to the readers at all (and good luck applying this to e.g. the Thirteen Colonies).

But if this kind of plan gets implemented, can you at least do it in an orderly fashion? On 4 Augustus, categories get changed from Germany to German Confederation[1]. But at the same time, on 3 Augustus, categories for the same periods get upmerged from Bavaria to Germany[2], resulting in the creation today of new such Germany categories([3]), and the nomination for speedy deletion as empty, also today, of the exact same category, but for the German Confederation[4] (which according to the collective wisdom here is the only correct one, while the new one is wrong). Fram (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a complete mess which resulted from several (independent?) CfDs, but at least I now deleted the 1846 category, and whatever was supposed to be there is in the 1846 German Confederation category. There might be other examples, I will take care of them when I check the backlinks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should occupation categories be added to location categories?

[edit]

There's a bit of a dispute here about whether a category such as Category:Newspaper people by newspaper in New York City should be included in Category:Journalists from New York City and the same with alumni of universities and schools and so on. Only the categories, not the articles/people, mind you. My view is that this helps in navigation. Others differ and its even led to heated exchanges. I thought I should bring this here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here, and here are the main ones. My role is VERY recent, I would add. It only came to my attention a week or so ago by complete chance. I think it should be settled amicably rather than be brought up every few weeks in heated exchanges. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like much of CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get the ball rolling here: @Marcocapelle, @HouseBlaster, @Ymblanter, @Pppery, @Fayenatic london, @LaundryPizza03, and @Smasongarrison. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Omnis Scientia! I really really appreciate you taking the lead. My view is similar to Omnis, that I think we should include these categories in the People from Foo. It makes it easier to implement policy for pages. However, as you will have gathered from my conversations with @Alansohn and @Lost in Quebec, others disagree. I'd rather not add much to the conversation because I'd much rather defer to consensus. Mason (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I've never used WP:CFD before or really done anything with categories. I came across Category:Canadaian religion navigational boxes earlier, an obvious typo (Canadaian > Canadian) with only one page. Would it have been ok for me to just move Category:Canadaian religion navigational boxes to Category:Canadian religion navigational boxes and update the one page manually with the new name? Or is it a strict requirement to go through WP:CFD/S? All the messaging points to the latter, but that seems a bit bureaucratic to me. C F A 💬 02:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Rangasyd consented then you could just move it summarily under WP:G7 or WP:IAR. But listing at CFDS can have the benefit of even better ideas, e.g. as this has only one member it should either be populated more or upmerged. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Rangasyd (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Certes/Reports/Circular categories

[edit]

Anyone interested in helping clearing this report? — Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles in the same vein. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series by 20th Century Fox Television

[edit]

Please undo the incorrect speedy and restore all pages to this category. Film and television categories do not get renamed to match current name as that is anachronistic and produces false information. We don't change history. I don't understand why this needs explaining each time. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page says that categories get processed if there are no objections. You often show up a week later and express your frustration. May be instead you should raise your objections within 48h every time. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my timetable isn't working for you. How about I don't need to repeat this same exact statements each time? This type of rename isn't speedy-able. Anyone interested in renaming should take it to a full discussion, advertised and open for at least 7 days. Gonnym (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National artists of Thailand

[edit]

@Ymblanter, @Hey man im josh, I did not see this or I would have opposed speedy. National Artist is a specific title, while national artist as a common noun doesn't mean anything. I would appreciate this being reverted and listed at full CfD, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: I'm not opposed to the process being respected and reverted when something is contested this quickly afterwards, but I do have a question for clarification. My understand is the category is based on the page National Artist (Thailand) and the title of "National Artist". With titles we typically apply MOS:JOBTITLES, meaning, when "National Artist" becomes pluralized to "National Artists", it's no longer a title, but instead a common noun and should actually be downcased to national artists. Is "National Artists" an actual title used? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
À propos that, check out the inconsistent handling among Category:Poets laureate and its subcats and sub-subcats. Largoplazo (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding, JOBTITLES only applies when the title is actually a common noun. It shouldn't apply to specific titles such as Boden Professor of Sanskrit (where we have Category:Boden Professors of Sanskrit), because "Boden professor" is meaningless as a common noun. Proper nouns can take plural forms after all. That said, I'm not sure about the Thai National Artist title since it's an award, and in some ways directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural; to compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but Best Actor winners). I'm not sure if this category shouldn't be reworded along the same lines. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do feel the current capitalization is correct, I have no problem with the change being reverted. After all, CFDS is for non-controversial changes. @Ymblanter: Is it normal to just place the category revert on WP:CFDS/Working? Or should it go through WP:CFDS again? Sorry for the delay @Paul 012, I don't typically edit on weekends. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, we can just put it back, I occasionally do this if there are objections within a reasonable time frame. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Midlothian

[edit]

Hello. I've noticed that there's a category requiring disambiguation, but I can't find any policy guidelines on the right way to do it.

Category:People from Midlothian is for people from the county in Scotland, and it's a subcategory of Category:Midlothian -> Category:People associated with Midlothian. There's also Category:People from Midlothian, Illinois, and Category:People from Midlothian, Virginia, which are for places in the US named after the place in Scotland. This would avoid bios for people from one of the five Midlothians in the US getting added to Category:People from Midlothian by mistake.

I could hatnote Category:People from Midlothian, since it seems to be the category equivalent of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or I could start a CFD discussion to move it to Category:People from Midlothian, Scotland with the redirect then containing Template:Category disambiguation, like Category:People from Limerick. But it seems likely that I just haven't found the policy guideline on this yet. Thanks for any advice. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speedy-able but there is a general tendency in category naming to disambiguate. Would need a full CfD for it. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New category for professional associations of economists?

[edit]

I propose to create Category:Economics-related professional associations, perhaps under a simpler name. I'd welcome feedback here. Key background:

  • There are about 10 articles about societies of economists in Category:Business and finance professional associations. That's not quite where they belong; some of these are overwhelmingly academic, and don't address business or finance topics. I'd put all 10 into this new category and take some out of the business and finance category.
  • The new category would be in Category:Professional associations by profession, parallel to the business/finance one, and to natural peers in the fields of psychology, architecture, and geography.
  • How to name it? I would like a concise name like "Societies of economists" but the longer name "economics-related professional associations" is sensible too -- it's accurate and would follow the naming system established by parallel groups. Any thoughts or suggestions? Is a shorter name okay?
  • I've invited input at WikiProject Economics.
  • Will watch for news here and eventually just do it.

Thanks for any advice. -- econterms (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category:Economics societies, would adding it to Category:Professional associations by profession solve the problem? TSventon (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
econterms, I have done as I suggested above, but I will not object if anyone has a better idea. TSventon (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Terrific. That does the trick. I'll put these 10 in that Category. Thank you, TSventon! -- econterms (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I posted this at Template talk:Cfd mass notice, but I suspect that nobody will see my note there. The template contains a template transclusion in a section header when it is used in talk pages, contrary to MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, looks like {{Section link}} isn't subst:able. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is, feel free to change the template yourself. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made it subst'able and updated the notice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not processing speedy moves?

[edit]

I think the speedy moves were not processed for two days. Anybody knows what is happening? Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: ? Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, we probably need to wait until all LGBTQ categories have been processed. Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that set of categories was keeping the bot busy. Making use of WP:CFD/W/L for such large batches would avoid this issue since that page gets processed independently. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is precisely where they were, may be we just moved them too late. Thanks anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monogeneric animal family

[edit]

Mohouidae is a monogeneric animal family. We have Category:Mohouidae for the family and Category:Mohoua for the sole genus. We would not have separate articles for the family and the genus, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Monotypic taxa, so I don't know why we have two categories. I can't find guidance specifically for categorising monotypic taxa. Are these candidates for merging, and would it be an up merge to the family or a down merge to the genus (as we do for articles)? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to rename three categories

[edit]

Please help me to rename three categories:
From
Category:Artists of Dagestan, Category:Sculptors of Dagestan, Category:Ceramists of Dagestan
To
Category:Artists from Dagestan, Category:Sculptors from Dagestan, Category:Ceramists from Dagestan
Thank you.
Boxes12 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxes12, you can use my script User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD for group nominations. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-independence Mexico

[edit]

In 2021, various Mexico chronology categories before 1821 were merged to New Spain, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_4#More_pre-indepdendence_"Mexico"_categories and the next one below it. However, others remain, including decade parents 1790s, 1800s and 1810s in Mexico. Mexico was only one of many territories within New Spain, so should the mergers be reversed rather than carried on? It seems a shame to leave gaps in Category:Decades in Mexico etc. Category:1800s in New Spain has other geographical subcats e.g. for East/West Indies. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=1257369032"