Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
![]() |
Skip to current discussions · |
|
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 6 | 39 | 0 | 45 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 27 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 107 | 0 | 107 |
Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types in accordance with the guidelines for categorization, category naming and stub articles.
For detailed instructions about using CfD, see "How to use CfD" below. Briefly, nominations are handled through one of two processes:
- Speedy renaming and merging, for uncontroversial proposals that meet specified criteria—see "Speedy renaming and merging" below.
- Full discussion, for all other proposals. Discussions typically remain open at least seven days and are closed once a rough consensus has formed or no objections to the nomination are raised.
Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.
When a category is renamed or merged with another category, in limited circumstances it may be helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.
Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a CfD request that is limited in scope to renaming, as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of a CfD move discussion to determine whether or not the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines. CfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Scope [ edit ]
CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages.
Current discussions [ edit ]
Discussions awaiting closure [ edit ]
V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 6 | 39 | 0 | 45 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 27 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 107 | 0 | 107 |
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 24 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 23 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 22 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 21 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 20 (1 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 19 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 15 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 14 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 13 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 8 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 6 (1 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 4 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 29 (1 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26 (5 open)
See also the list of individual discussions awaiting closure here and the list of full open discussions awaiting closure here.
How to use CfD [ edit ]
Nomination procedure [ edit ]
Twinkle [ edit ]
You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Start a deletion discussion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.
Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category or stub template. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, or if you prefer not to use Twinkle, follow the manual steps below.
Manual nominations [ edit ]
I |
Preliminary steps.
Before nominating a category:
In the following special cases:
For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. |
II |
Edit the category.
Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.
|
III |
Create the CFD section.
Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries. Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the
|
Stub types [ edit ]
I |
Preliminary steps.
In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:
|
II |
Edit the template.
Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.
|
III |
Create the CFD section.
Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries. Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update the default parameters):
|
Notifying interested projects and editors [ edit ]
In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.
- Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2021 March 4|CfD section name}} ~~~~
or write a personalized message.
Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
- Notifying substantial contributors to the category
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use {{Cfd notice}}
to inform the category's creator and all other editors.
- Notifying other interested editors
It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use {{Cfdnotice}}
for this.
Closing procedure [ edit ]
After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion. Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and, except in the case of a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented.
Redirecting categories [ edit ]
In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]
), we use a form of "soft redirect" 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.
In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.
A list of redirected categories is available at Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.
Speedy renaming and merging
Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.
- Determine which speedy criterion applies
- Tag category with
{{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
- List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page
Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.
Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy 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") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}
with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.
To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:
- Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~
You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion but, unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.
Contested speedy 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 revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.
If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.
Speedy criteria [ edit ]
The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes [ edit ]
- 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).
- Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain.
C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices [ edit ]
- 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: Consistency with established category tree names [ edit ]
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: Consistency with main article's name [ edit ]
- Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
- This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
- unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
- uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
- This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
- Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.
C2E: Author request [ edit ]
- This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months 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 that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
C2F: One eponymous article [ edit ]
- This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use
{{subst:cfm-speedy}}
(speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).
Admin instructions [ edit ]
When handling the listings:
- Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
- With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
- Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.
If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.
Applying speedy criteria in full discussions [ edit ]
- 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]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.) If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:
*REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
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 09:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC). Currently, there are 189 open requests (. )
![]() |
Administrators and page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here! Categories are processed following the 48-hour discussion period and are moved by a bot. |
Current requests [ edit ]
- Category:Andalusian footballers to Category:Footballers from Andalusia – C2B, see this proposal which was passed without objection. Set below. Crowsus (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Aragonese footballers to Category:Footballers from Aragon
- Category:Asturian footballers to Category:Footballers from Asturias
- Category:Balearic footballers to Category:Footballers from the Balearic Islands
- Category:Basque footballers to Category:Footballers from the Basque Country (autonomous community)
- Category:Canarian footballers to Category:Footballers from Cantabria
- Category:Cantabrian footballers to Category:Footballers from the Canary Islands
- Category:Castilian-Leonese footballers to Category:Footballers from Castile and León
- Category:Castilian-Manchegan footballers to Category:Footballers from Castilla–La Mancha
- Category:Catalan footballers to Category:Footballers from Catalonia
- Category:Ceutan footballers to Category:Footballers from Ceuta
- Category:Extremaduran footballers to Category:Footballers from Extremadura
- Category:Galician footballers to Category:Footballers from Galicia (Spain)
- Category:Ibizan footballers to Category:Footballers from Ibiza
- Category:Riojan footballers to Category:Footballers from La Rioja (Spain)
- Category:Melillan footballers to Category:Footballers from Melilla
- Category:Murcian footballers to Category:Footballers from the Region of Murcia
- Category:Navarrese footballers to Category:Footballers from Navarre
- Category:Valencian footballers to Category:Footballers from the Valencian Community
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Crowsus (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Transport in Sultanpur to Category:Transport in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh – C2D per Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh/Category:Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Education in Sagar to Category:Education in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh – C2D per Sagar, Madhya Pradesh/Category:Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Transport in Rewa to Category:Transport in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh – C2D per Rewa, Madhya Pradesh/Category:Rewa, Madhya Pradesh Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Transport in Korba to Category:Transport in Korba, Chhattisgarh – C2D per Korba, Chhattisgarh/Category:Korba, Chhattisgarh Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Transport in Gonda to Category:Transport in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh – C2D per Gonda, Uttar Pradesh/Category:Gonda, Uttar Pradesh Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:People from Mhow to Category:People from Dr. Ambedkar Nagar – C2D per Dr. Ambedkar Nagar/Category:Dr. Ambedkar Nagar. Mhow redirects to Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Films shot in Bijapur to Category:Films shot in Bijapur, Karnataka – C2D per Bijapur, Karnataka/Category:Bijapur, Karnataka Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:People from Bharatpur to Category:People from Bharatpur, Rajasthan – C2D per Bharatpur, Rajasthan/Category:Bharatpur, Rajasthan Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Schools in Barabanki to Category:Schools in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh – C2D per Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh/Category:Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Cricketers from Aurangabad to Category:Cricketers from Aurangabad, Maharashtra – C2C per Category:Sportspeople from Aurangabad, Maharashtra/Category:People from Aurangabad, Maharashtra Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Mass media in Gaya to Category:Mass media in Gaya, India – C2D per Gaya, India/Category:Gaya, India Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:People from Presidente Prudente to Category:People from Presidente Prudente, São Paulo – C2D per Presidente Prudente, São Paulo/Category:Presidente Prudente, São Paulo Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- mergeCategory:Diadema, São Paulo to Category:Municipalities in São Paulo (state) – C2F Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- mergeCategory:Avaré, São Paulo to Category:Municipalities in São Paulo (state) – C2F Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:People from Osorno to Category:People from Osorno, Chile – C2D per Osorno, Chile/Category:Osorno, Chile Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Sport in Kalush to Category:Sport in Kalush, Ukraine – C2D per Kalush, Ukraine/Category:Kalush, Ukraine Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:2020 Thai protests to Category:2020–2021 Thai protests – C2D: Per renaming of main article to 2020–2021 Thai protests. Paul_012 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Characters in Diriliş: Ertuğrul and Kuruluş: Osman to Category:Diriliş: Ertuğrul and Kuruluş: Osman characters – per WP:C2B like Category:A Song of Ice and Fire characters and Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Limorina (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:City Status to Category:City status – C2A/C2D per City status Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Cultural depictions of Afghani women to Category:Cultural depictions of Afghan women – C2C per Category:Afghan people, Category:Afghan women Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Vice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and it's predecessors to CategoryVice Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and its predecessors – it's should be its. LilHelpa (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as is, this should be Category:Vice Chairmen of the Workers' Party of Korea and its predecessors, using the plural. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Japanese female Youtubers to Category:Japanese female YouTubers – C2A, capitalization Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Passion albums to Category:Passion (worship band) albums – C2D per Passion (worship band) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:FIFA (video game) players to Category:FIFA (video game series) players – C2D per FIFA (video game series)/Category:FIFA (video game series) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:History of the United States Democratic Party to Category:History of the Democratic Party (United States) – C2D: History of the Democratic Party (United States). 1857a (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:CBS All Access drafts to Category:Paramount+ drafts – C2D: In 2 days on March 4, 2021, the page CBS All Access will be rebranded to Paramount+, so this will be affected as well. I am posting this category ahead of time. Starzoner (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also add Category:CBS All Access shows. Starzoner (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Flightglobal to Category:FlightGlobal – C2D: FlightGlobal. 1857a (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Dano-Swedish War of 1808–09 to Category:Dano–Swedish War of 1808–09 – C2A/D first hyphen based on recent move of article on MOS:ENBETWEEN grounds Le Deluge (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES: "Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry". "Dano" is a combining form, so a hyphen is appropriate. I have moved the article back; the original move was undiscussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Books of the Heian Period to Category:Heian-period works – C2C & C2E: stands out from other similar categories Category:Kamakura-period works, Category:Muromachi-period works, & Category:Edo-period works Daiichi1 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose change from "books" to "works", goes against parent Category:Japanese books. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy faculty to Category:The Fletcher School at Tufts University faculty – C2D per The Fletcher School at Tufts University. Alumni category has already been nominated by User:Alansohn. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Question: should there really be a definite article, per WP:THE? Place Clichy (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Practice seems different: category names beginning 'The'. Oculi (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However WP:THE is not an absolute prohibition (e.g. The Beatles), but it should be demonstrated that the definite article is undoubtedly part of the name and capitalized in running text, which does not seem obvious with (t)(T)he Fletcher School at Tufts University, or any graduate school. Main article itself was moved first from Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy to Fletcher, The Graduate School of Global Affairs in November and then to the current name in December, seemingly without discussion. I could or should have objected the first move on this ground as WP:C2D did not apply, but hey, Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Place Clichy (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Since the article title contains "The", a speedy rename should not suddenly deviate from that. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- This doesn't appear to be opposed as 'The' is capitalised wherever it appears in https://fletcher.tufts.edu/about and say https://www.lawstudies.com/universities/USA/The-Fletcher-School-Tufts-University/. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However WP:THE is not an absolute prohibition (e.g. The Beatles), but it should be demonstrated that the definite article is undoubtedly part of the name and capitalized in running text, which does not seem obvious with (t)(T)he Fletcher School at Tufts University, or any graduate school. Main article itself was moved first from Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy to Fletcher, The Graduate School of Global Affairs in November and then to the current name in December, seemingly without discussion. I could or should have objected the first move on this ground as WP:C2D did not apply, but hey, Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Place Clichy (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Practice seems different: category names beginning 'The'. Oculi (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: do you formally oppose this nomination or do you think it can be processed? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Let's proceed it, reluctantly, per C2C rather than C2D. I think the target name is not good, but we should probably start by a discussion on the name of the main article and main category. Place Clichy (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Question: should there really be a definite article, per WP:THE? Place Clichy (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Opposed requests [ edit ]
- Category:Films directed by Wolfgang Becker to Category:Films directed by Wolfgang Becker (born 1954) – C2D per Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954). Please don't keep the old page title as a relink, because there are two German directors of the same name – this is the other: Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910). The article Wolfgang Becker that corresponded to this category name, is now a disambiguation page. Sprachraum (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed The main article is Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954), so this should be renamed to Category:Films directed by Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954). Armbrust TheHomunculus 09:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Armbrust, I considered that too, but it seems needlessly redundant. "directed by" already makes obvious that he is a director. Here is an example that doesn't copy the whole article title either: Category:Films directed by Zhang Yang, where the article name is Zhang Yang (director). In Wolfgang Becker's case one can't drop the parentheses completely, because there is also the director born in 1910, but analog to Zhang Yang I would drop the word "director" from the parentheses. --Sprachraum (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- While that may be true, your proposed title doesn’t fit the criteria you chose. Armbrust TheHomunculus 07:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Armbrust, I would appreciate you being more constructive about this. What you seem to be saying, is that the name I propose is fine, but I should have tagged it with a different C2-whatever, therefore you oppose it. (And you don't bother to tell me what criteria-tag I should have used instead.) This sort of bureaucratic obstinacy is not helpful. I've found plenty more category names where it was done like I propose, many of which don't even bother to show the full name with parentheses in the introduction text:
Films directed by Mike Mitchell, Films directed by George Marshall, Films directed by Robert Stevenson, Films directed by Michael Anderson and Films directed by John Glen. I've also found some (but far fewer) who do it the redundant way: Category:Films directed by Scott Sanders (director). If there is a rule that says one of these methods is incorrect, I haven't found it yet. So if the name is fine, please don't waste my time opposing it. I chose C2D because (quote): "the page was just moved after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename". --Sprachraum (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC) - I think this would require a full discussion because the proposed category name is actually diverging from the name of the article, not reproducing it. C2D does not apply. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well congratulations everyone! What a fine time-and-motivation sapping bureaucracy you have built up here, where no-one engages on the substance of the proposition, but only keeps on telling me that I haven't jumped through the right C2-hoop – without telling me which hoop I should have jumped through! (Or why that even matters, if the name is ok.) It feels like a scene from one of my favourite movies, Terry Gilliam's Brazil. So then, please move this to the hallowed full discussion harbour, where someone will actually explain to me, why all the category examples I linked to are wrong – or why this is different, because... --Sprachraum (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sprachraum, it's not really bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. There is a substantive issue here. I would oppose a category name that would diverge from the article name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well congratulations everyone! What a fine time-and-motivation sapping bureaucracy you have built up here, where no-one engages on the substance of the proposition, but only keeps on telling me that I haven't jumped through the right C2-hoop – without telling me which hoop I should have jumped through! (Or why that even matters, if the name is ok.) It feels like a scene from one of my favourite movies, Terry Gilliam's Brazil. So then, please move this to the hallowed full discussion harbour, where someone will actually explain to me, why all the category examples I linked to are wrong – or why this is different, because... --Sprachraum (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think this would require a full discussion because the proposed category name is actually diverging from the name of the article, not reproducing it. C2D does not apply. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Armbrust, I would appreciate you being more constructive about this. What you seem to be saying, is that the name I propose is fine, but I should have tagged it with a different C2-whatever, therefore you oppose it. (And you don't bother to tell me what criteria-tag I should have used instead.) This sort of bureaucratic obstinacy is not helpful. I've found plenty more category names where it was done like I propose, many of which don't even bother to show the full name with parentheses in the introduction text:
- While that may be true, your proposed title doesn’t fit the criteria you chose. Armbrust TheHomunculus 07:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Armbrust, I considered that too, but it seems needlessly redundant. "directed by" already makes obvious that he is a director. Here is an example that doesn't copy the whole article title either: Category:Films directed by Zhang Yang, where the article name is Zhang Yang (director). In Wolfgang Becker's case one can't drop the parentheses completely, because there is also the director born in 1910, but analog to Zhang Yang I would drop the word "director" from the parentheses. --Sprachraum (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed The main article is Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954), so this should be renamed to Category:Films directed by Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954). Armbrust TheHomunculus 09:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Executive branch of the Slovenian government to Category:Executive branch of the Government of Slovenia – C2C: per Government of Slovenia and Category:Government of Slovenia. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) - Oppose per recent decision in the case of the Republic of Artsakh which has lowercase "government". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
- Category:Executive branch of the Serbian government to Category:Executive branch of the Government of Serbia – C2C: per Government of Serbia and Category:Government of Serbia. Oculi (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) - Oppose per recent decision in the case of the Republic of Artsakh which has lowercase "government". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
- Category:Executive branch of the Indian government to Category:Executive branch of the Government of India – C2C: per Government of India, Category:Government of India. Oculi (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- 'The Government of India' is a title, so uppercase is correct. Indian government redirects to Government of India. 'The parent is trailing "government"' makes no sense. Oculi (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per recent decision in the case of the Republic of Artsakh which has lowercase "government". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
- Category:Defunct departments of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Defunct departments of the Government of the United Kingdom – C2C: per Government of the United Kingdom, Departments of the Government of the United Kingdom, Category:Government of the United Kingdom, Category:Departments of the Government of the United Kingdom. Oculi (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Non-ministerial departments of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Non-ministerial departments of the Government of the United Kingdom
- Category:Ministerial departments of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Ministerial departments of the Government of the United Kingdom
- Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) - Oppose the parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization. Also Republic of Artsakh decision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion [ edit ]
- Category:16th-century Irish Anglican priests to Category:16th-century Church of Ireland clergy – C2C: To match Category:Church of Ireland clergy Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:21st-century Irish Anglican priests to Category:21st-century Church of Ireland clergy – C2C: To match Category:Church of Ireland clergy Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:20th-century Irish Anglican priests to Category:20th-century Church of Ireland clergy – C2C: To match Category:Church of Ireland clergy Rathfelder (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:19th-century Irish Anglican priests to Category:19th-century Church of Ireland clergy – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:18th-century Irish Anglican priests to Category:18th-century Church of Ireland clergy – C2C: To match Category:Church of Ireland clergy Rathfelder (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:17th-century Irish Anglican priests to Category:17th-century Church of Ireland clergy – C2C: To match Category:Church of Ireland clergy Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
-
- These six categories should be put on hold pending further discussion at WP:CFD after User:Peterkingiron's comment that the Church of Ireland was established around 1870. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: That claim is absurd. What existed prior to 1870? It was created at the Irish Reformation. Or by Saint Patrick if you prefer the continuity argument. Do these need to go to full CFD? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion [ edit ]
- Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government to Category:Executive branch of the Singapore government – lowercase government.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)- This should be Category:Executive branch of the Government of Singapore per Category:Government of Singapore, Government of Singapore (C2C and C2D). Oculi (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- The parent is trailing "government". Also capitalization.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- Also WP:C2B, naming conventions: Wikipedia:Category_names#State-based_topics, explicitly including government - Categories of topics usually in the domain of the state are named "... of country". Oculi (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
-
- Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Russian Empire Azerbaijani people to Category:Azerbaijani people of the Russian Empire
- Oppose this one, suggest Category:Azeris of the Russian Empire instead, which is similar to e.g. Category:Armenians of the Russian Empire and Category:Jews of the Russian Empire. Using Azeris rather than Azerbaijani seems a better idea in if the scope of the category is based on ethnicity and not geography. It is also less anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There was no state or nation of Azerbaijan in the Russian Empire. The liturature designates the people in what is now Azerbaijan as "Tatars". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Azeri people of the Russian Empire, Clichy forgot the "people". Those others are outliers, and need to be fixed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)- As we have neither Category:Azeri people nor Category:Azeris these suggestions will not work, speedily or otherwise. Oculi (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe not for speedy then, but Azerbaijani surely cannot be used for a time when there is no Azerbaijan. Place Clichy (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia currently uses only "Azerbaijani" for categories, including Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people by country of citizenship and its sub-cats. There were two related discussions in 2013: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_28#Category:Ethnic_Azerbaijani_people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 18. In November 2018, Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people was apparently emptied out-of-process. This edit stated that it duplicated Category:Azerbaijani diaspora. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Additional complexity, according to Azerbaijan#Etymology, until the beginning of the 20th century the name Azerbaijan was only used for what is now the northwest of Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia currently uses only "Azerbaijani" for categories, including Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people by country of citizenship and its sub-cats. There were two related discussions in 2013: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_28#Category:Ethnic_Azerbaijani_people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 18. In November 2018, Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people was apparently emptied out-of-process. This edit stated that it duplicated Category:Azerbaijani diaspora. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe not for speedy then, but Azerbaijani surely cannot be used for a time when there is no Azerbaijan. Place Clichy (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- As we have neither Category:Azeri people nor Category:Azeris these suggestions will not work, speedily or otherwise. Oculi (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- The full discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_22#Category:Russian_Empire_Azerbaijani_people. Armbrust TheHomunculus 09:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Russian Empire photographers to Category:Photographers of the Russian Empire – C2C per this CFD Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied. This is a super sneaky attempt to impose physicians by an editor who knows this is not a universally accepted agreed upon term, and he is clearly out of line treating this as something that can be speedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the obstructionist comes out after he just stood in the way of my improvement. The discussion was closed out of process, this should not be spedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Moved to a full discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Russian Empire agnostics to Category:Agnostics of the Russian Empire – C2C: convention within Category:People of the Russian Empire by religion. Oculi (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed name is needlessly longer. The change of the parent name was done by an out of process internetion by an administrator against a unanimous concensus of those who had contributed that a rename to use this format was advised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, you may disagree with how the broader discussion was closed and may prefer the current format, but what would be the rationale for keeping these categories different than all the others in Category:People of the Russian Empire? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Because it was a close that had no consensus for it. Speedy renames need to be uncontroversial, and this is not uncontroversial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, so because you disagree with how a broad discussion was closed, we're going to keep two different formats? That seems awfully petty of you. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy renames need to be uncontroversial. This is controversial, there was no consensus to rename as was done, it was a last minute imposition and never got widespread support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is simply untrue. In the cfd 2020_December_3#Russian_Empire_people Fayenatic London pinged all 8 earlier contributors on 24/01 requesting a decision between 'Russian Empire people' and 'People of the Russian Empire'. 4 explicitly preferred the latter, 2 said 'either', one didn't reply, and no-one opposed (other than JPL, on 20/01). There is nothing controversial about a close opposed only by the nominator. Oculi (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy renames need to be uncontroversial. This is controversial, there was no consensus to rename as was done, it was a last minute imposition and never got widespread support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, so because you disagree with how a broad discussion was closed, we're going to keep two different formats? That seems awfully petty of you. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Because it was a close that had no consensus for it. Speedy renames need to be uncontroversial, and this is not uncontroversial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, you may disagree with how the broader discussion was closed and may prefer the current format, but what would be the rationale for keeping these categories different than all the others in Category:People of the Russian Empire? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
-
- Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Congolese independence activists to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo independence activists – C2C: per parent Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo politicians. Oculi (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure about that, as it's clearly anachronistic. Some of them were activists for the independence of Republic of the Congo from Belgium; "Democratic" was only added later, but Congolese works for any time. Moreover, some of them were secessionists, seeking independence from DRC for e.g. Katanga; but again, doesn't Congolese still work for them too? – Fayenatic London 22:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Democratic Republic of the Congo is anachronistic for any events before 1997. These independence activists are more likely related to the period when the country was called Belgian Congo, Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) or Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa). Expressions Congo-Léopoldville and Congo-Kinshasa are also widely used. A better name for the category may be Category:Congo-Léopoldville independence activists. Place Clichy (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is Category:Belgian Congo people. It was Zaire for quite a while. C2C goes on the parent without considering historical complexities, or whether the parent is correct, or correctly named. 'Congolese' is ambiguous as there was a French one and a Belgian one. Patrice Lumumba is in 6 'Democratic Republic of the Congo' categories. Category:Congolese people is a disamb category with 3 possibilities (which should perhaps be increased as there is Portuguese Congo as well). Oculi (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
-
- Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion was relisted on CFD 2021 March 3. Armbrust TheHomunculus 17:49, 3 March 2021 (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.
Empty categories awaiting deletion [ edit ]
The categories listed below have been identified as empty using {{db-catempty}}
, and will be speedily deleted after 7 days unless populated. (Note: Due to technical limitations, all contents of the category may not be displayed; view the category directly to see all contents.)