This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Cosmetic change
I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of {{CfD top}} from bff9fc to caf0f2 (or at least something similar).
SWinxy asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.
bff9fc is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Well, if we're on web colours, which I agree would make sense; Lavender , LightCyan and Azure are probably the best options in keeping with a pale-blue theme.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, if we're only looking at those choices, I think the Azure would be too pale. It needs to show it's closed. And I think the Lavendar seems more violet than blue.
Besides LightCyan I suppose there's also PaleTurquoise , PowderBlue , LightBlue , SkyBlue . The PaleTurquoise seems closest to your second closed example above. Though I'm not sure the small boxes show us clarity/contrast well enough. - jc3700:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc3701:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I like Lavender – it is slightly purple, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug (though I am certainly biased as it is my second favorite color, after pink. HotPink , anyone?). Azure and LightCyan are a close seconds. All of the choices above are
W3C AAA-compliant for black text (including HotPink!).
HouseBlastertalk03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to LightCyan ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I have no problem with the current colour. The first proposal caf0f2 strikes me as a bit grubby, less pleasing on the eye. LightCyan is cleaner than that, on all of my devices, and I could live with it. However, it has this disadvantage: because dark mode has no effect on browser pages (or project/category pages in the Wikipedia app), I occasionally invert the colours on my tablet (triple-click on iPads), and in that presentation LightCyan, Azure and Lavender are almost indistinguishable from white, whereas the current bff9fc and caf0f2 are clearly distinct. –
FayenaticLondon14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, PaleTurquoise is dark enough that it shows up (as lighter) on an inverted-colour iPad. But in normal viewing, I find that blue links stand out less clearly against it than they the do against the current bff9fc. I would therefore prefer to stay put. Of course, if there's a majority in favour of change, I'll live with it; it's not a big deal to me. –
FayenaticLondon16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes. If it's been a long time (several years) since the CfD and the reasoning from the CfD clearly no longer holds, a category can usually be re-created without issue. But if it's more recent, or if the situation isn't clear, the safest route I think would be to open a
WP:deletion review to discuss whether the previous consensus still holds. In any case, the category would have to be manually re-populated. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
12:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
In most cases such an outcome probably indicates that consensus is against re-creating such a category, and that should be respected. There may be exceptions, such as a case being misunderstood, but the way forward will depend on the exact circumstances. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I indeed processed the speedy yesterday. I overlooked the existence of the other nomination )or may be the template was not there).
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The category had been populated by moving people from the parent, so it seemed correct to revert to status quo ante by merging. If there is consensus to exclude people who did not survive,
Category:Formerly missing people should state this, with documentation on its talk page. –
FayenaticLondon08:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It was easy to overlook. I only saw the nom because I was looking at someone's edit history. The nomination placed on a typo "
Janruary 28", and I suspect that the template wasn't there. I also agree with FL, that the merge as implemented seemed to restore the status quo. Furthermore, I would argue that you can be notably missing and eventually turn up deceased. (Many of the examples in the discussion focused on how some people who were murdered might be reported as missing. But that's not really the same as being notable for being missing)
Mason (
talk)
22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, there's clearly a big difference between people who went missing then turned up alive and those who were found dead. They were presumably separately categorised at the time of the 2020 CfD, but following the deletion of
Category:Formerly missing people found dead, editors then lumped them together in
Category:Formerly missing people. This seems to go against the intent of that CfD and is quite clearly undesirable if you ask me; I can see why
Minerva97 (whom I forgot to ping earlier) re-created and populated it as
Category:Missing people found deceased, even if she was unaware of the previous discussion.
Anyway, however we got here, the more relevant question is how to move forward. We could start a new CfD to either (A) re-split
Category:Formerly missing people into missing-then-alive and missing-then-dead people (overturning the previous CfD result), or (B) rename it to more clearly reflect what I assume is the original intended scope and purge the missing-then-dead to enforce the previous CfD outcome. However, maybe this discussion alone is enough indication that the situation and consensus has changed in the intervening three years, so "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", negating G4. In that case (C) the bot actions can simply be reverted, restoring Minerva97's split. That would avoid the need to manually purge or re-split the category again, which would be needed should we go the new CfD route. Or we could also (D) do nothing.
Since there was a unanimous decision to merge I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining.
Davidgoodheart (
talk)
16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
While I could see the justification for a divide between the living and the dead, I don't see any need to make it at the moment:
I think less than 5 percent of all missing persons cases we have articles about that have been resolved have been resolved with the MP turning up alive. That might justify such a category, but ... not right now, I think. There are more articles we could write about such cases, but for now we haven't written them.
Just read through this and there are several completely reasonable options here but I favor B. It appears to me that the naming of
Category:Formerly missing people lends itself to including people found dead (whether through an automated merge or manually per article). I would leave this merge in place and leave it up to anyone who felt strongly to open a new CFD to rename the category to something like
Category:Formerly missing people found alive and then we can purge if that passes. (This is a just suggestion though and I favor any path forward that has anything close to a consensus.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
My slight inclination is D (but B is fine if sometone is so motivated), as that requires less action, effectively leaving the merge in place, and I like your suggestion of being open to missing people found alive. (There is a category that captures something close that, effectively temporarily missing people). I don't feel strongly about it.)
Mason (
talk)
02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia Administrator Daniel Case has stated The CFD is closed and I think that the unanimous decision should remain, since he is an administrator I think we should do what he says.
Davidgoodheart (
talk)
03:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Deferring to an admin's opinion because they are an admin, isn't a compelling reason. (Sorry, @
Daniel Case). I happen to agree with them. Hence lean D. But, their status as an admin wasn't part of my reasoning.
Mason (
talk)
04:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless you want to propose an actual rename to facilitate B. It seems that everyone is indifferent (either directly or indirectly) to make another change, except you. So, I think that we should just do D, which is nothing.
Mason (
talk)
01:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Following the British, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cats, which have now all been moved from Queen's Counsel to King's Counsel, shouldn't the same be done for this category?
Yep, already done. That was just me being a lazy bastard (not having used the process for some time) and hoping someone would do it for me. Anyway, I've done it now. --
NSH001 (
talk)
21:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories.
What do you think about upmerging all team categories in
Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.
Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with
Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see there are some categories with over 10 entries, and these are probably legit, and there are others with two or three, these can be upmerged.
Ymblanter (
talk)
08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter, the size isn't what I meant. I think these are trivial because most of these are former major league players so short minor league coaching stints - since minor leagues coaches are shifted around a lot in the farm system of a major league team - aren't defining to their career. Does that make sense?
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter, of course. I put two categories up before because the teams were defunct and had one article in each - and hence not likely to grow - so I'm just waiting for that to close.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Cfds not going through
I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.
Thank you for the reply. I was concerned that it may have been a bot issue (Mason suggested it might be) or something else as, usually, these go through within a week or some and there are a lot that have been stalled for over a month (and some even earlier). Hence why I brought it up. But there isn't any issue then I understand.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is indeed lack of admins who add closed nominations to the page for bot. It does not help much that I am leaving for holidays today, but we will eventually sort it out.
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion, I have done this after skimming over some of the speedy merge criteria for CfD. It seems to qualify for
WP:C2A and
WP:C2D, but bots will clean up it up anyways per the info at the category redirect template. No fuss, thanks again. ―
Synpath03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, my sensibilities probably skew too much to RfD where the alternate captilization could be considered helpful as 'chemical biology' appears often enough as a proper noun in university course titles and textbooks. ―
Synpath18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The top half of the page
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.
The criteria used to be at
WP:CFSD rather than
WP:CFDS until 2016.
[1] Since then, you can search the archives of this talk page for "speedy criteria" if that's what interests you, as changes are generally proposed here before implementation. –
FayenaticLondon14:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely...
Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to
Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :)
DonIago (
talk)
14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).
The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.
In theory,
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).
Compare, for example, the standard statement after the closure of every CfD: ... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as an appropriate discussion page.
Besides, another regular practice (that I have followed as well) is going to the closing admin's personal talk page to request a reopening if I think there has been a procedural mistake.
Finally, afaik, deletion review is not used very often for categories, nor are category talk pages. Often, people may take a category with a issue to CFD, without necessarily knowing a solution yet - just to draw attention to the issue for CFD regulars to read; because they know it's unlikely that cat talk pages are on watchlists of many people.
So, this standard message suggesting venues for "subsequent comments" (including requesting reopenings) seems to differ very much from actual practice, and isn't very helpful.
(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)
So:
Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?
Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.
In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.
Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives.
Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and
WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me.JokeNLeeuw (
talk)
21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks.
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params.
* Pppery *it has begun...16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply