Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
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
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
Discussions awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 3
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 2
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 1
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 30
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 29 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28 (11 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 27 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 26 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 25 (8 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 24 (1 open - Television series by Universal Studios)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 23 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 22 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 21 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 18 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 17 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 16 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 15 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 13 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 12 (6 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 11 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 9 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 8 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 7 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 6 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 4 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 2 (7 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 1 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 31 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 30 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 29 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 28 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 26 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 25 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 23 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 22 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 21 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 19 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 18 (6 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 16 (9 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 15 (1 open – Tennis people from LA)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 27 (2 open – Sports clubs, Basketball clubs)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 24 (3 open – War crimes in Jordan, Chartered Accountants and Indian CAs)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 18 (1 open – Concept automobiles)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 17 (1 open – Provincial and state governors by country)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1 (2 open – Avenues, Fireworks festivals)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 29 (2 open – Sports festivals, and Estab in Czechoslovakia by century)
How to use CfD
Procedure
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.
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
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
Users without accounts (unregistered users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD).
Redirecting categories
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
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
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.
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, they need to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.
Speedy criteria
The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
C1. Unpopulated categories
- 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
-
- 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 be used only 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 be applied only 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 that 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 that resulted in a no consensus result.
-
- C2E. Author request.
- This criterion applies only 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
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 03:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 78 open requests (. )
Current nominations
- Category:St. John Fisher Cardinal football to Category:St. John Fisher Cardinals football – C2A; school fight name is "Cardinals" not "Cardinal". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:St. John Fisher Cardinal football coaches to Category:St. John Fisher Cardinals football coaches – C2A; school fight name is "Cardinals" not "Cardinal". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:St. John Fisher Cardinal football players to Category:St. John Fisher Cardinals football players – C2A; school fight name is "Cardinals" not "Cardinal". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Schools in Hyderabad (Sindh) to Category:Schools in Hyderabad, Sindh – C2B. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:People from Hyderabad, Pakistan to Category:People from Hyderabad, Sindh – C2C per Category:Hyderabad, Sindh. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:People from Hyderabad, Pakistan by occupation to Category:People from Hyderabad, Sindh by occupation
- Category:Sportspeople from Hyderabad, Pakistan to Category:Sportspeople from Hyderabad, Sindh
- Category:Sport in Hyderabad, Pakistan to Category:Sport in Hyderabad, Sindh
- Category:Films shot in Hyderabad, Pakistan to Category:Films shot in Hyderabad, Sindh
- Category:Universities in Hyderabad to Category:Universities in Hyderabad, Sindh
- Category:Penal labor to Category:Penal labour – C2D, article is Penal labour AusLondonder (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Argos telenovelas to Category:Argos Comunicación telenovelas – C2D per Argos Comunicación. Tassedethe (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Argonaute class ships of the line to Category:Argonaute-class ships of the line – C2D per Argonaute-class ship of the line. Tassedethe (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Uprisings of Lithuania to Category:Rebellions in Lithuania per C2C.--Zoupan 15:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Uprisings of Belarus to Category:Rebellions in Belarus per C2C.--Zoupan 15:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Home economics to Category:Family and consumer science – C2D, Home economics redirects to Family and consumer science. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: this is a new Americanism to me; I don't mind that, but it looks from the external links and citations as if the page ought to be at the plural name Family and consumer sciences or perhaps capitalised as Family and Consumer Sciences. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Opposed nominations
- Category:Persecution by early Christians to Category:Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - C2D per Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose the proposed name. Agree that it should change but not to this. "Persecution" is too POV. Wait until the main article has been through a rename proposal that I will initiate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Laurel Lodged: This nomination moved to section "On hold pending other discussion". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Laurel Lodged: where is the rename proposal on the article? I can't trace it. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: You must have been reading my mind. Just a few minutes ago I wrote to Marcocapelle asking him to remind me of this very item. I'll see to it now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The RM ended in no consensus. @Laurel Lodged: Are you going to maintain or withdraw your earlier oppose here? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: You must have been reading my mind. Just a few minutes ago I wrote to Marcocapelle asking him to remind me of this very item. I'll see to it now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Laurel Lodged: where is the rename proposal on the article? I can't trace it. – Fayenatic London 21:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Given the failure of my proposal to win support, I now withdraw my objection. It's still wrong IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Laurel Lodged: This nomination moved to section "On hold pending other discussion". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Foreign workers to Category:Foreign labor – C2C: There are no individual workers in this category. fgnievinski (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question @Fgnievinski: How does C2C apply? The current category meets the main article name. AusLondonder (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Until a reply is received. AusLondonder (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:The Devil in fiction to Category:Devil in fiction – C2D and WP:THE. Brandmeistertalk 22:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Object to CFDS speedy rename I think this should have a full discussion, especially since "devil" has many meanings, even in Christian contexts. Is this about The Devil (ie. Satan) or a devil (ie. demon)? The loss of "The" removes the capitalization and the selectiveness of the "the". In non-Abrahamic contexts, it gets worse, with some mythologies translating into different grades of Devil/devils/demons. And of course fiction already does that (just look at fantasy with Greater Devils and such) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The common meaning is the supreme personification of evil (and/or Satan), that's why the devil redirects to devil, which is not a disambiguation page. This is also consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Brandmeistertalk 08:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Our article at devil is not about "The Devil", that article is located at Satan. If the coverage of these categories are not about the personification of evil, or the evil creatures that are servants of evil (demons), then it should not lose "The". If it is for the Abrahamic derived concept, then it should use Satan and not devil. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- The common meaning is the supreme personification of evil (and/or Satan), that's why the devil redirects to devil, which is not a disambiguation page. This is also consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Brandmeistertalk 08:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 16:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- * Oppose – I don't see how this can be a speedy when the article is Satan and a parent category is Category:Satan. I would not oppose changing 'The Devil' to 'Satan' which does appear speediable. Oculi (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Category:Rover engines to Category:Rover Company engines – C2B: per Rover Company/Category:Rover Company. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose both: see below comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Jaguar engines to Category:Jaguar Cars engines – C2B: per Jaguar Cars/Category:Jaguar Cars. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose renaming of Category:Jaguar Formula One cars to Category:Jaguar Cars Formula One cars - the Formula One team was just known as "Jaguar", so the category name should remain as is. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose all: agree with DH85868993; Jaguar Cars is the name of the company, it's not the brand name (despite the article saying so), "Jaguar" is, and the model names are like "Jaguar F-Type", not "Jaguar Cars F-Type". We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Piaggio aircraft to Category:Piaggio Aerospace aircraft – C2B: per Piaggio Aerospace/Category:Piaggio Aerospace. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose both: see above comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the aircraft. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose both: Per WP:C2C (long-established tree naming convention}. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Bertone vehicles to Category:Gruppo Bertone vehicles – C2B: per Gruppo Bertone/Category:Gruppo Bertone. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose both: see above comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Would Support in CFD Some of the other renames here I would oppose because the name is both a specific brand and a company that houses other brands in the parent category. That's not the case here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Bandini vehicles to Category:Bandini Automobili vehicles – C2B: per Bandini Automobili/Category:Bandini Automobili. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose: see above comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with all oppose on this set of renames; this is a semantic confusion of the company and the product line's brand name. It's the same as trying to rename all "Windows" categories to use "Microsoft" instead of "Windows". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Would Support in CFD Some of the other renames here I would oppose because the name is both a specific brand and a company that houses other brands in the parent category. That's not the case here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of thermodynamics to Category:Subfields of thermodynamics – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Fields of seismology to Category:Subfields of seismology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of psychology to Category:Subfields of psychology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of philosophy to Category:Subfields of philosophy – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of meteorology to Category:Subfields of meteorology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Fields of mathematics to Category:Subfields of mathematics – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Linguistics disciplines to Category:Subfields of linguistics – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of immunology to Category:Subfields of immunology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Fields of history to Category:Subfields of history – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of geography to Category:Subfields of geography – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Forensic disciplines to Category:Subfields of forensics – C2A: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Fields of finance to Category:Subfields of finance – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Economics by specialty to Category:Subfields of economy – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Areas of computer science to Category:Subfields of computer science – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of botany to Category:Subfields of botany – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Branches of biology to Category:Subfields of biology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Astronomical sub-disciplines to Category:Subfields of astronomy – C2A: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Archaeological sub-disciplines to Category:Subfields of archaeology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy There is no clear convention for the proposed format in Category:Subfields by academic discipline, and therefore C2C doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course there is: the convention of of the parent category, which features the keyword "Subfields", not any of "sub-disciplines", "disciplines", "branches", "fields", or "areas". fgnievinski (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clear convention means almost every category in uses the proposed format in the tree. Currently, however, only 8 of the 32 subcategories of Category:Subfields by academic discipline uses the "Subfields of FOO" format, so it's not a clear convention. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course there is: the convention of of the parent category, which features the keyword "Subfields", not any of "sub-disciplines", "disciplines", "branches", "fields", or "areas". fgnievinski (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support it's simply citing the wrong criterion; we normalize subcat names to parentcat names absent an unusual reason not to. No prejudice against a later and larger CfR on the whole tree to use one convention consistently. This one should be done per WP:COMMONSENSE anyway, since "branches" is a vernacularism; people actually in academic disciplines/fields don't call them "branches" (or "areas" for that matter; "areas" means topical scopes of focus/specialization by individuals or groups, and "branches" doesn't really mean anything). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy There is no clear convention for the proposed format in Category:Subfields by academic discipline, and therefore C2C doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support with SMcCandlish. — CN1 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Many of these have pages associated with them, often of the same name (e.g. Branches of botany, Archaeological sub-disciplines, Branches of science), which seem to indicate that "subfield" is not the accepted standard (as a historian it is not, for what it is worth, the term that I would reach for to describe my own research area). More importantly, these pages indicate that a decision made here will have impacts beyond categorisation - so discussion should take place in a venue where input from a wide variety of wiki-bureaucrats, not just those of the categorisation sub-field, have a reasonable chance of participating. Also, it would be a great shame to lose "branches of botany." Furius (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Kosovar Turks to Category:Kosovo Turks – C2D. Zoupan 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy for Category:Kosovar Turks only. Only recently moved and without discussion, therefore C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- It was bold, see the talk page, hits favour the new name.--Zoupan 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Zoupan:, it may have been a good bold move, but it doesn't matter how good any of us thinks the move was -- recent bold moves are ineligible for C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- It was bold, see the talk page, hits favour the new name.--Zoupan 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy for Category:Kosovar Turks only. Only recently moved and without discussion, therefore C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Plymouth vehicles to Category:Plymouth (automobile) vehicles – C2B: per Plymouth (automobile)/Category:Plymouth (automobile). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Plymouth concept vehicles to Category:Plymouth (automobile) concept vehicles
- Oppose these two as clumsy and unnecessary. The main article needs disambiguating, but these don't. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: We do not apply parenthetical disambiguations in category-space if they're not needed. The resulting name would also be redundant to the point of browbeating the reader. Our readers are not morons, and they know that we don't have a category for something as trivially absurd as cars that happen to be in a place in Massachusetts. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Plymouth concept vehicles to Category:Plymouth (automobile) concept vehicles
On hold pending other discussion
- None currently
Moved to full discussion
- Category:Monuments historiques of Centre-Val de Loire to Category:Historic monuments of Centre-Val de Loire – Changing name combining English and French terms to all English; monument historique = historic monument. See Category_talk:Monuments_historiques_of_Centre-Val_de_Loire. Hoping I'm within the speedy criteria to propose this under C2A above. Eric talk 16:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Monuments historiques of Indre-et-Loire to Category:Historic monuments of Indre-et-Loire – Changing name combining English and French terms to all English; monument historique = historic monument. Would I be stretching the speedy criteria to propose this under C2A above? Eric talk 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose use of speedy of the two immediately above. We probably should have a full discussion on this, since "Monument historique" is an official designation and we have an article about it that uses the French-language name. We have a general parent category Category:Official historical monuments of France, but then a bunch of the by-location subcategories use "Monuments historiques", so I think a full discussion is needed to sort this all out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question: Hi @Good Olfactory:, thanks for weighing in. Can we simply move this to the full discussion, or do we wait for more input? Also, seeing your mention of the parent cat, I might have done better to propose this under C2C. Eric talk 13:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Eric: hi; you don't have to wait for any more input on this page—you're free to start a full discussion at any time. A full CFD is kind of the "default" procedure, so if in doubt, starting a full discussion is never wrong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Added proposal here. Eric talk 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Judaic studies in academia to Category:Jewish studies – C2D per Jewish studies, also matching sub-cats e.g. Category:Israel Prize in Jewish studies recipients, Category:London School of Jewish Studies. Certainly the words "in academia" are no longer needed, even if Judaic should be preferred for some reason. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Judaic studies journals to Category:Jewish studies journals
- Now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_3#Judaic_studies. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Judaic studies journals to Category:Jewish studies journals
- Category:Judaism terminology to Category:Judaic terminology - Use adjective rather than noun for proper grammar, as in Category:Bhuddist terminology, etc. Cgingold (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Cgingold: This is a somewhat rare word. Is it necessary to use it here, e.g. to distinguish the religious nature of the topic, i.e. "Judaism-related" as opposed to "Jewish"? – Fayenatic London 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: - Hmmm. I'm not absolutely sure, but I would be inclined to go with "Judaic". However, I see that you've listed a couple of other cats above, which further muddy the picture. Perhaps these should all be taken to regular CFD for a full discussion. If you want to move them, I will notify the Wikiproject and invite their participation. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, it needs a better vehicle for discussion. Jewish studies doesn't necessarily mean the same as Judaic studies. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I already posted a link at WP:JUDAISM, but am happy to hold a full discussion. Now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_3#Category:Judaism_terminology. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, it needs a better vehicle for discussion. Jewish studies doesn't necessarily mean the same as Judaic studies. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: - Hmmm. I'm not absolutely sure, but I would be inclined to go with "Judaic". However, I see that you've listed a couple of other cats above, which further muddy the picture. Perhaps these should all be taken to regular CFD for a full discussion. If you want to move them, I will notify the Wikiproject and invite their participation. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Cgingold: This is a somewhat rare word. Is it necessary to use it here, e.g. to distinguish the religious nature of the topic, i.e. "Judaism-related" as opposed to "Jewish"? – Fayenatic London 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Commercially available Elms to Category:Commercially available elms – capitalization. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Is this really a defining characteristic? On a quick look there don't seem to be any equivalent categories, and presumably all members of this are a subset of Category:Elm cultivars.Le Deluge (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good points. Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 23. – Fayenatic London 11:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail to Category:Railway stations served by Northern - C2D in line with operator change on 1 April 2016 from Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio) to Northern (train operating company) 7ten (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is ambiguous. I suggest Category:Railway stations served by Northern (train operating company) to match the parent article, Northern (train operating company). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is not ambiguous. It has the phrase "railway stations" in the title and a link to Northern (train operating company) on the category page. There is no need to further complicate or lengthen the title. Category:Railway stations served by Northern is perfect as proposed. Rcsprinter123 (interface) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's ambiguous because it could easily refer to any of these. I should mention that Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) has been pre-emptively recategorising pages from Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail to Category:Railway stations served by Northern. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The link on the page is sufficient. Rcsprinter123 (reason) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rcsprinter123: @Redrose64: I have moved this to a full discussion here and have moved the articles back to the original category pending the discussion result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The link on the page is sufficient. Rcsprinter123 (reason) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's ambiguous because it could easily refer to any of these. I should mention that Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) has been pre-emptively recategorising pages from Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail to Category:Railway stations served by Northern. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is not ambiguous. It has the phrase "railway stations" in the title and a link to Northern (train operating company) on the category page. There is no need to further complicate or lengthen the title. Category:Railway stations served by Northern is perfect as proposed. Rcsprinter123 (interface) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is ambiguous. I suggest Category:Railway stations served by Northern (train operating company) to match the parent article, Northern (train operating company). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Synchronised swimming in China to Category:Synchronized swimming in China per C2C NB: Category:Chinese synchronized swimmers uses "Z" Hugo999 (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support: RETAIN pertains to article content not categories, and it only applies anyway when the change would be arbitrary and has no real rationale (C2C is a rationale). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: agree with SMcCandlish. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Synchronised swimming competitions Brazil to Category:Synchronized swimming competitions in Brazil per C2A,C NB: Category:Brazilian synchronized swimmers uses "Z" Hugo999 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose both Per WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support both per comment above. RETAIN is not a magic wand that disappears other concerns. It's a default when there are no other concerns. And it doesn't apply in this namespace to begin with. [Note: The MOS:TIES part of MOS:ENGVAR can be relevant here, but it is not in this case other than we favor US spellings for W. Hemisphere topics, except where there's a strong British or Canadian tie.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Clarified. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: agree with SMcCandlish. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Moved both above to a full discussion.
- Unfortunately nationalistic spelling obsessions is taking place here. I would never dream of trying to eradicate American English spelling in the way others are doing with British English spelling. No credible reason is being presented as to why WP:RETAIN is not relevant here AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- To have one spelling within the country categories for Brazil and China (which both required changing for other reasons) Hugo999 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @AusLondonder:, you mean nationalist spelling stuff taking place like ... going RM to RM opposing all moves that have anything to do with alleged spelling differences between UK and US English, so desperately that one injects bogus rationales in all of them, clouding the discussion with noise? (This is not actually a UK vs. US English matter to begin with. Read Oxford spelling – ize is perfectly acceptable in British/Commonwealth English, just as in Canadian, especially in an academic/formal register, which is what WP is written in. The only English dialect that insists on one spelling is American, and it's not ise, so the ENGVAR question is entirely moot.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would say "-ise" vs "-ize" is entirely moot as far as ENGVAR questions are concerned. I've seen so many consensus decisions where the adoption of "-ise" is done explicitly on ENGVAR grounds, right or wrong. That said, it's true that "-ize" is the older, more original form of English and is not a result of Webster's Americanism simplifications, as in the case of many other ENGVAR issues, so it is a somewhat different case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Kind of an "WP:OTHERCRAPHAPPENED" point, though. >;-) How many of those discussions included any discussion of Oxford spelling? I concede "irrelevant" was hyperbolic. ENGVAR would be relevant for an -ise → -ize move if the topic had strong American ties. It shouldn't carry much weight the other way around, because -ize is okay in British/Commonwealth English. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- "-ize" is OK in British English, but it's questionable whether it is preferred (or more popular), which is probably the more salient issue. As much as proponents of Oxford style wish it ruled the isles, it doesn't always. I'm involved in academic publishing, and all UK journals I deal with, save those published by Oxford University, demand the "-ise" spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kind of an "WP:OTHERCRAPHAPPENED" point, though. >;-) How many of those discussions included any discussion of Oxford spelling? I concede "irrelevant" was hyperbolic. ENGVAR would be relevant for an -ise → -ize move if the topic had strong American ties. It shouldn't carry much weight the other way around, because -ize is okay in British/Commonwealth English. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, @SMCCandlish: the facts are clear. -ise remains overwhelmingly preferred in India, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (plus many smaller countries). The European Union uses -ise. The Australian newspaper goes so far as to rename the World Health Organization to the World Health Organisation in its coverage. The Indian government will obviously have to rename Central Organisation for Modernisation of Workshops, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, Federation of Indian Export Organisations, India Trade Promotion Organisation, Defence Research and Development Organisation and also of course the Indian Space Research Organisation. All at your command. AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The -ise spelling is preferred in news style and fiction, the -ize in formal/academic publishing. Which kind is Wikipedia? I'm not arguing, of course, that the -ise spelling should be expunged; it's an acceptable and common variant outside the US, and yes, it's more common in less formal writing like newspapers. People simply have to stop treating ENGVAR as if it said "you can pick US or UK English only, and there is one an only one way to spell, punctuate or do anything in each of these dialects". It doesn't indicate anything like that, and it would be dead wrong if it did. On average I'll support an -ize to -ise move if the subject is British, Australian, Indian, etc. (not Canadian), but only if there are not countervailing reasons against it, like divergence from the rest of a consistent category (some categories consistently use one or the other depending on ENGVAR, some use only one spelling regardless of the country, and either system is okay, just not a mishmash), or no strong ties and someone just like -ise better. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- "The -ise spelling is preferred in news style and fiction, the -ize in formal/academic publishing." This is not my experience. As I mentioned above, I'm involved in academic publishing, and all UK journals I deal with, save those published by Oxford University, demand the "-ise" spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The -ise spelling is preferred in news style and fiction, the -ize in formal/academic publishing. Which kind is Wikipedia? I'm not arguing, of course, that the -ise spelling should be expunged; it's an acceptable and common variant outside the US, and yes, it's more common in less formal writing like newspapers. People simply have to stop treating ENGVAR as if it said "you can pick US or UK English only, and there is one an only one way to spell, punctuate or do anything in each of these dialects". It doesn't indicate anything like that, and it would be dead wrong if it did. On average I'll support an -ize to -ise move if the subject is British, Australian, Indian, etc. (not Canadian), but only if there are not countervailing reasons against it, like divergence from the rest of a consistent category (some categories consistently use one or the other depending on ENGVAR, some use only one spelling regardless of the country, and either system is okay, just not a mishmash), or no strong ties and someone just like -ise better. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure I would say "-ise" vs "-ize" is entirely moot as far as ENGVAR questions are concerned. I've seen so many consensus decisions where the adoption of "-ise" is done explicitly on ENGVAR grounds, right or wrong. That said, it's true that "-ize" is the older, more original form of English and is not a result of Webster's Americanism simplifications, as in the case of many other ENGVAR issues, so it is a somewhat different case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The China one was renamed, and the Brazil one is relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 23#Synchronised swimming in Brazil. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately nationalistic spelling obsessions is taking place here. I would never dream of trying to eradicate American English spelling in the way others are doing with British English spelling. No credible reason is being presented as to why WP:RETAIN is not relevant here AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Moved both above to a full discussion.
- Category:PATH stations to Category:PATH (rail system) stations
- Category:PATH stations in New Jersey to Category:PATH (rail system) stations in New Jersey
- Category:PATH stations in New York to Category:PATH (rail system) stations in New York
- Oppose no disambiguation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Moved to a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose no disambiguation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Category:New Jersey Transit stations to Category:NJ Transit stations
- Category:Proposed New Jersey Transit stations to Category:Proposed NJ Transit stations
- Oppose, name should include train or rail stations since NJT also operates light rail and bus stations and this category does not include them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Moved to a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, name should include train or rail stations since NJT also operates light rail and bus stations and this category does not include them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Category:Proposed New Jersey Transit stations to Category:Proposed NJ Transit stations
- Category:Pacific Electric Railway to Category:Pacific Electric – C2D per Pacific Electric Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Pacific Electric Railway templates to Category:Pacific Electric templates
- Category:Pacific Electric Railway succession templates to Category:Pacific Electric succession templates
- Oppose — confusing, reads like an electric utility company name instead of a public transit company name. Regards — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Moved to a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose — confusing, reads like an electric utility company name instead of a public transit company name. Regards — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Mitsubishi Motors concepts to Category:Mitsubishi Motors concept vehicles – C2C: per the convention in Category:Concept automobiles. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Jeep concept automobiles to Category:Jeep concept vehicles
- Category:GM Korea concept automobiles to Category:GM Korea concept vehicles
- Category:General Motors concept automobiles to Category:General Motors concept vehicles
- Hang on. Are any of the contents not cars (automobiles)? The main article is concept car and has been for years, after a brief undiscussed move to concept vehicle. If all the contents are cars, then I suggest putting these four on hold pending a full nomination of the top category and all the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Good point by Fayenatic. But there is another separate issue: the head category is Category:Concept automobiles, and instead of trying to adopt that format per C2C, this nomination is trying to rename the pages away from that format. It seems that these categories could be standardised in at least 2 different directions, so a full discussion is required. I suggest a group nom with several pre-pack options, as I did a week ago with the subcats of broadcasting by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- @BrownHairedGirl: The Category:Concept automobiles format couldn't be "adopt"ed per C2C, because most subcategories don't use that. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my wording was clumsy. What I mean is that there is a prima facie C2C case for following the head category. As you note, that would fail on other grounds.
The point is that either way, there seems to be no speediable change available here. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my wording was clumsy. What I mean is that there is a prima facie C2C case for following the head category. As you note, that would fail on other grounds.
- @BrownHairedGirl: The Category:Concept automobiles format couldn't be "adopt"ed per C2C, because most subcategories don't use that. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Good point by Fayenatic. But there is another separate issue: the head category is Category:Concept automobiles, and instead of trying to adopt that format per C2C, this nomination is trying to rename the pages away from that format. It seems that these categories could be standardised in at least 2 different directions, so a full discussion is required. I suggest a group nom with several pre-pack options, as I did a week ago with the subcats of broadcasting by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 18#Category:Concept automobiles. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hang on. Are any of the contents not cars (automobiles)? The main article is concept car and has been for years, after a brief undiscussed move to concept vehicle. If all the contents are cars, then I suggest putting these four on hold pending a full nomination of the top category and all the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Ready for deletion
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
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.
|