Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Categories for discussion (CfD) is where the renaming, merging or deletion of categories – i.e. pages in the Category namespace – is discussed and action decided. Stub types templates are also discussed here.
Categories are used to organize pages and aid the browsing of related articles. For instructions as to how to use this page, perform cleanup maintenance or request speedy deletions or renamings, see "How to use CfD" below. The policies meant to guide category renaming may be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made.
Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised.
When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it is usually helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.
Contents
Scope[edit]
CfD is only intended for discussions where an editor already has a clear action proposal in mind. For general brainstorming on how to improve the category system, good places for discussion include Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and the talk pages of any WikiProjects relevant to the content covered by the categories in question.
Current discussions[edit]
Discussions awaiting closure[edit]
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 1 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 30 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 29 (1 open – Metal detector)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 27 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 24 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 23 (1 open – Road accidents)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 22 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 18 (6 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 17 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 13 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 12 (7 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 11 (1 open – 1652 establishments in the Cape Colony)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 9 (1 open – 1866 establishments in British Burma)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 7 (1 open – ISIL members by nationality)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 6 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 5 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 4 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 1 (1 open – Thai Buddhist temples)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 29 (1 open – Creative works)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 20 (1 open – Meadowbank Thistle F.C.)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 31 (1 open – Tamil television series endings per year)
How to use CfD[edit]
Procedure[edit]
To list a category manually for deletion, merging or renaming, follow this process:
I |
Preliminary steps.
Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming.
|
II |
Edit the category.
Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the category text of every category to be discussed. (The tags belong on the categories' main pages rather than their talk/discussion pages.)
|
III |
Create the CFD section.
Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries. Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), to copy and paste the template shown. All categories are specified without the
|
Once you have previewed your entry, please make sure to add your signature after your proposal. If nominating a list of entries as a batch mentioned after your rationale, it is somewhat neater to place these after the signature (rather than leave the signature dangling at the end of the list, apparently unrelated to your reasons).
Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.
Also, consider adding to your watchlist any categories you nominate. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle[edit]
The use of Wikipedia:Twinkle greatly facilitates CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to "my preferences", the "Gadgets" tab, the "Browsing" section and check "Twinkle ...". Use the now-installed "XfD" (Nominate for deletion) tab while viewing the page to be deleted or renamed.
Users without accounts and users with new accounts[edit]
Users without accounts (unregistered users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD).
Redirecting categories[edit]
It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)
However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)
Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}}
to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects.
In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.
You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.
Closing[edit]
When closing CfDs, document their results (e.g. with links to CfD page history) on the talk pages of the affected categories, if not deleted. If deleted, document the deletion decision in the deletion edit summary. See {{cfd top}}.
Special notes[edit]
When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.
Categories that should exist but are missing articles or subcategories should be added to Category:Underpopulated categories using {{Popcat}}.
If a category is only used as generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo-stub), and that template is deleted by a regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template, or mentioned early in the discussion.
Speedy renaming and merging
Categories may be listed for speedy renaming or speedy merging if they meet one or more of the criteria specified below. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. A request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.
Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required to process these. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.
Contested requests become stale, and can be un-tagged and de-listed, after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to continue the process, s/he needs to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.
Speedy criteria[edit]
The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
C1. Unpopulated categories[edit]
- That have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.
- Tag category with {{Db-c1}}.
C2. Renaming or merging[edit]
-
- C2A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
- Correction of spelling errors and capitalization 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. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
- Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
-
- C2B. Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
- Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
- Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).
-
- C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names.
- This should only be used where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
- This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
- 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).
-
- C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
- Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
- This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
- This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages which resulted in a no consensus result.
-
- C2E. Author request.
- This criterion only applies if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within 28 days of creating the category.
- The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
- For C2A to C2E, tag category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}} and list on WP:CFDS. Administrators may implement C2E cases without delay.
For any categories that are not speedy candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
- A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
- The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here,
- And no objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
- If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.
Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here[edit]
If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
* [[:Category:{old name here}]] to [[:Category:{new name here}]] – {reason for rename here} ~~~~
This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.
Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC). Currently, there are 59 open requests (. )
Current nominations[edit]
- Category:Rock formations in Australia to Category:Rock formations of Australia – C2C: Hugo999 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Rock formations in Bolivia to Category:Rock formations of Bolivia
- Category:Rock formations in Brazil to Category:Rock formations of Brazil
- Category:Rock formations in Canada to Category:Rock formations of Canada
- Category:Rock formations in Chile to Category:Rock formations of Chile
- Category:Rock formations in China to Category:Rock formations of China
- Category:Rock formations in the Czech Republic to Category:Rock formations of the Czech Republic
- Category:Rock formations in France to Category:Rock formations of France
- Category:Rock formations in Germany to Category:Rock formations of Germany
- Category:Rock formations in India to Category:Rock formations of India
- Category:Rock formations in Ireland to Category:Rock formations of Ireland
- Category:Rock formations in Japan to Category:Rock formations of Japan
- Category:Rock formations in Kyrgyzstan to Category:Rock formations of Kyrgyzstan
- Category:Rock formations in Malta to Category:Rock formations of Malta
- Category:Rock formations in Mexico to Category:Rock formations of Mexico
- Category:Rock formations in New Zealand to Category:Rock formations of New Zealand
- Category:Rock formations in Nigeria to Category:Rock formations of Nigeria
- Category:Rock formations in Norway to Category:Rock formations of Norway
- Category:Rock formations in Peru to Category:Rock formations of Peru
- Category:Rock formations in Russia to Category:Rock formations of Russia
- Category:Rock formations in Serbia to Category:Rock formations of Serbia
- Category:Rock formations in Slovenia to Category:Rock formations of Slovenia
- Category:Rock formations in South Africa to Category:Rock formations of South Africa
- Category:Rock formations in Spain to Category:Rock formations of Spain
- Category:Rock formations in the United Kingdom to Category:Rock formations of the United Kingdom
- Category:Rock formations in the United States to Category:Rock formations of the United States
- Category:Rock formations in the United States by state to Category:Rock formations of the United States by state
- Category:Rock formations in to Category:Rock formations of
- others to follow
- Category:Glacial erratics in Canada to Category:Glacial erratics of Canada – C2C: Hugo999 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Glacial erratics in Germany to Category:Glacial erratics of Germany
- Category:Glacial erratics in Great Britain to Category:Glacial erratics of Great Britain
- Category:Glacial erratics in the United States to Category:Glacial erratics of the United States
- Category:Glacial erratics in Massachusetts to Category:Glacial erratics of Massachusetts
- Category:Glacial erratics in New York to Category:Glacial erratics of New York
- Category:Glacial erratics in Oregon to Category:Glacial erratics of Oregon
- Category:Glacial erratics in Washington (state) to Category:Glacial erratics of Washington (state)
- Category:Frisian people to Category:Frisians – C2D: per Frisians. Note: Frisian people redirects to Frisians. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Germanic studies to Category:Germanic philology – C2D: per Germanic philology. Note: Germanic studies redirects to Germanic philology. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Trinidad and Tobago women's international soccer players to Category:Trinidad and Tobago women's international footballers – same as Trinidad and Tobago women's national football team, sport isn't called soccer in Trinidad and Tobago Joeykai (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:California Proposition 8 to Category:California Proposition 8 (2008) – C2D: per California Proposition 8 (2008). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Dakhla-Oued Ed Dahab to Category:Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab – C2A. Cobblet (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Landmarks in Queens to Category:Landmarks in Queens, New York – C2C per Category:Queens, New York. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:1914 in South-West Africa to Category:1914 in German South-West Africa – C2C. The country was known as German South-West Africa until 1915. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Category:1915 in South-West Africa should also be merged the same way, as everything in it happened before 9 July 1915. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:1915 in South-West Africa to Category:1915 in German South-West Africa – well spotted, Armbrust. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Human–animal interaction to Category:Anthrozoology – C2D per Anthrozoology Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Neighborhoods in Queens to Category:Neighborhoods in Queens, New York – C2B per Category:Queens, New York (see also full CFD). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Opposed nominations[edit]
- Category:European Chess Champions to Category:European champions in chess – Fix caps. SFB 19:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Goes against the convention of Category:Chess players by competition. Also this isn't just a simple capitalisation fix. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Filipino city and municipal councilors to Category:Filipino city and municipal councillors – C2A/C2C per Category:City councillors. RioHondo (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment does Philippine English use one "l" or two "ll" ? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. I did a search on google news and it looks like Philippine media uses both, the same way for travellers and travelers. I'd say we follow the Wiki category tree instead.--RioHondo (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- For issues of spelling, "Philipine English" should probably conform more to U.S. English than other forms, since the islands were occupied by the U.S. for a period of time. See Philippine English, where it says "Philippine English traditionally followed American English spelling and grammar". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- This i'm not sure which one is used in which English dialect, nor was i aware there was spelling difference for this word. So councillor with a double L is British? (Compared to the US though, i think the Philippines is more welcoming of British spellings, British colonies on all sides here-- HK, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc). But sure, let's follow the American template: Category:Filipino city and municipal council members and Category:Metro Manila city and municipal councillors to Category:Metro Manila city and municipal council members. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, double l would be British spelling, one l would be American spelling. I think you are also right that in the Philippines they adhere to American English less strictly than some other places and are more likely to let British usage sneak in. The article Philippine English points out some areas (Eg, dates) where it is actually more like British English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- This i'm not sure which one is used in which English dialect, nor was i aware there was spelling difference for this word. So councillor with a double L is British? (Compared to the US though, i think the Philippines is more welcoming of British spellings, British colonies on all sides here-- HK, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc). But sure, let's follow the American template: Category:Filipino city and municipal council members and Category:Metro Manila city and municipal councillors to Category:Metro Manila city and municipal council members. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- For issues of spelling, "Philipine English" should probably conform more to U.S. English than other forms, since the islands were occupied by the U.S. for a period of time. See Philippine English, where it says "Philippine English traditionally followed American English spelling and grammar". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. I did a search on google news and it looks like Philippine media uses both, the same way for travellers and travelers. I'd say we follow the Wiki category tree instead.--RioHondo (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose speedyNot a clear-cut case of WP:STRONGNAT. We need to see how councillors is usually spelt in The Philippines. Additionally, User:RioHondo are you aware that the category tree is irrelevant in some cases, such as Category:Non-governmental organisations based in India in the Category:Non-governmental organizations by country tree because of STRONGNAT?AusLondonder (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)- Big deal.--RioHondo (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- There have been full CFDs where it has been agreed that American English usage is more appropriate for the Philippines. Eg, here. I think it's quite likely that that consensus would hold here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder: If we have 100 editors weigh in on a full CFD, will we really come any closer to solving how a non-English speaking country spells English words? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think AusLondonder is correct to oppose this speedy change, because it would be changing it from American English to British English, and we have some indication that the Philippines uses American English when English is used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I withdraw by opposition in this case. Simply being an American colony or occupied territory at one time does not = automatic use of US English, as implied in that other CFD. With regards to councilor vs councillor, I have found that some disputes have even occurred in the US regarding which is more appropriate. For example, the City of Boston uses councillors. AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Big deal.--RioHondo (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy. Since the stated oppose has been revoked, I'm adding my formal opposition to using the speedy criterion for this move, for the reasons discussed above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment does Philippine English use one "l" or two "ll" ? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
- None currently
Moved to full discussion[edit]
- Category:Food grains to Category:Grains – C2D: per Grain. Jenks24 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy worth keeping the clarification. That grain actually only means food grain is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is bizarre to me that the category gets moved from Category:Grains (which still redirects there) to Category:Food grains per C2D, but when the article gets moved back apparently C2D shouldn't apply. Why should C2D only apply in one direction? Jenks24 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- That was an odd move discussion, & sometimes categories need to be extra-clear. The complicated OED entry on "grain" does not support the idea that grains refer only to edible types. That may be the primary meaning, which might be enough for an article, but category names need to be clearer. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: what are some articles that could theoretically be categorized as Category:Grains but we would not place in Category:Food grains? Not snark or trying to make a point—sincerely wondering what sort of article is in question here and if there would be a practical difference in terms of WP categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's really the wrong question, although the OED doesn't define grain as restricted to food. The right one is "What might people think Category:Grains covers?", and given the range of uses in material science etc, I think there's potential for confusion. It should be speedied anyway. See below. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Silly Johnbod, there are no wrong questions. Thanks for your quick response! (I agree it should not be speedied when users object on reasonable grounds—speedies are for non-controversial issues or issues that perhaps were controversial but have been at least temporarily settled by consensus.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's really the wrong question, although the OED doesn't define grain as restricted to food. The right one is "What might people think Category:Grains covers?", and given the range of uses in material science etc, I think there's potential for confusion. It should be speedied anyway. See below. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: what are some articles that could theoretically be categorized as Category:Grains but we would not place in Category:Food grains? Not snark or trying to make a point—sincerely wondering what sort of article is in question here and if there would be a practical difference in terms of WP categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- That was an odd move discussion, & sometimes categories need to be extra-clear. The complicated OED entry on "grain" does not support the idea that grains refer only to edible types. That may be the primary meaning, which might be enough for an article, but category names need to be clearer. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is bizarre to me that the category gets moved from Category:Grains (which still redirects there) to Category:Food grains per C2D, but when the article gets moved back apparently C2D shouldn't apply. Why should C2D only apply in one direction? Jenks24 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Object to CFDS rename Grain (disambiguation) shows the ambiguity in this. There are many prominent topics in unrelated areas -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Joy. Another full discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#Category:Food grains. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy worth keeping the clarification. That grain actually only means food grain is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Namur (city) to Category:Namur – C2D: per Namur. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Category:People from Namur (city) to Category:People from Namur
- Oppose CFDS Speedy rename this is highly ambiguous. Yes, the city is called Namur, but the province it is located in is also called "Namur". People from Namur will collect everyone from the province, making it unmaintainable. Same with the base category. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now at CfD for the next month: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 27#Category:Namur (city). Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose CFDS Speedy rename this is highly ambiguous. Yes, the city is called Namur, but the province it is located in is also called "Namur". People from Namur will collect everyone from the province, making it unmaintainable. Same with the base category. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Category:People from Namur (city) to Category:People from Namur
- Category:1866 establishments in British Burma to Category:1866 establishments in Burma – C2C following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_12#Category:1824_establishments_in_British_Burma. – Fayenatic London 19:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very Strong Oppose In 1866 Burma was no more a unified country than was Germany in 1966. There were two distinct Burmas, one ruled by the British. The other an independent kingdom not ruled by the British. The previous decision was wrong, done by people who willfully ignored the actual history of Burma to bring it about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- And yet we do have Category:1966 in Germany! There's just not enough in the Burma case to require dividing into subcategories corresponding to the constituent parts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now at full discussion. – Fayenatic London 13:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- And yet we do have Category:1966 in Germany! There's just not enough in the Burma case to require dividing into subcategories corresponding to the constituent parts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very Strong Oppose In 1866 Burma was no more a unified country than was Germany in 1966. There were two distinct Burmas, one ruled by the British. The other an independent kingdom not ruled by the British. The previous decision was wrong, done by people who willfully ignored the actual history of Burma to bring it about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Coats of arms of Nigeria to Category:Nigerian coats of arms – C2C per format of subcategories of Category:Coats of arms by country Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong objection to CFDS Speedy Rename This will cause immediate trouble. Niger and Nigeria are two separate countries that exist, for which sources have used "Nigerian" for both. Category names should not be so ambiguous. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- The adjective for Niger used on Wikipedia is Nigerien, not Nigerian. Examine the trees for Category:Nigeria and Category:Niger. Both "Nigerian" and "Nigerien" are already used extensively in the category tree system. There's no reason for this one not to similarly be named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Moved to a full CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- The adjective for Niger used on Wikipedia is Nigerien, not Nigerian. Examine the trees for Category:Nigeria and Category:Niger. Both "Nigerian" and "Nigerien" are already used extensively in the category tree system. There's no reason for this one not to similarly be named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong objection to CFDS Speedy Rename This will cause immediate trouble. Niger and Nigeria are two separate countries that exist, for which sources have used "Nigerian" for both. Category names should not be so ambiguous. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Ready for deletion[edit]
Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.
Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.
Categories possibly emptied out of process[edit]
Note. Categories listed here will be automatically moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 96 hours.
Note. Due to limits of the software, all contents of the category may not be displayed. View the category directly to see all contents.
|