Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

; Archives
	c. July – December 2004; c. December 2004 – May 2005; c. May – September 2005; c. October – December 2005; January – 4 April 2006; April – June 2006; June – August 2006; August 2006 – January 2007; 2007; 2008; ;

Shortcut

WT:CFD

Empty by year categories

Not sure where this should be discussed but I just declined the speedy deletion of a number of empty "by year" categories. I don't have a very strong opinion on whether or not these should be kept but I do feel strongly that this is not a case where the empty category speedy criterion should apply. For the most part, these categories were created automatically by eventualist-leaning Wikipedians and were almost empty by design. Some sort of debate needs to take place before we really decide what to do. My first feeling would be sympathy toward eventualism in this case. As someone who has done quite a bit of categorization work, I know it kind of sucks to add such a category to an article and then find out you have to re-create it, proper templates and all, because it was deleted as empty. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need placeholder categories for "someday" when they get populated IMO. "By year" categories are deleted regularly if empty for more than 4 days, simply create the category when they get populated. I don't see why an eventualist would have a problem with this, since after all, the category will be created eventually, when it is actually needed. For instance, I deleted Category:2018 singles the other day. Are we seriously going to wait 10 years before this is actually used? I realize that is an extreme example, but for all we know it could be 10 years before some of these empty "by year" categories are actually used. Additionally, I find restoring the deleted category easier when it becomes populated, since there is no manual template or text restoration required. VegaDark (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, from an admin's perspective, undeleting is no hassle. But that's just 1500 of us. With all due respect, this discussion will lead nowhere if we work with Category:2018 singles as our main example. Eventualism is not about preparing for articles to be written in ten years, it's about believing that the content you find missing today might be there the next hour. I was thinking more along the lines of speedys I declined earlier today like Category:18th century in Chile or Category:1669 novels. In the first case, I think it's obvious that deleting serves no useful purpose, whereas keeping it may motivate someone to move their ass and populate it, which clearly it could be. The second case, is not so obvious because it's not even clear that there will ever be an article on Wikipedia about a 1669 novel. However, suppose some newbie comes along and creates such an article. If he's smart enough, he adds the category and then goes "damn, that didn't work". Sure, odds are slim but then again, the idea of speedy deleting empty categories is that (a) they're often abandoned categories (b) they're categories whose emptiness shows their complete uselessness (c) they were de-populated for some good reason and finally (d) we don't want readers going to a category and being frustrated at its emptiness. If you go to Category:1669 novels and find it empty, you'll be smart enough to understand that there are either no such articles or that articles that should be there have not been categorized appropriately. This is actually fairly good info. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a person can't find a single article or page to put into a category, then I have no qualms about deleting the category description page. We're talking about categories that don't contain a single item; it's plain silliness to keep these pages around indefinitely in case they someday may be needed. It's not as though it takes more than ten seconds to create a category description page. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the arguments to delete them but I don't think this justifies a new speedy-deletion criterion. At the top of WT:CSD are four considerations that must be met for a new criterion. While this standard is certainly objective and probably uncontestable, I am not convinced that it arises frequently enough to justify expanding a page that is already overly long and complicated. Can prod or some other alternative be extended to these situations instead? Rossami (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I misread the original notice and misunderstood one of the replies. Comment withdrawn. Rossami (talk)

I think you are misunderstanding the situation. CSD C1 already covers these types of categories, there is no new speedy criterion being proposed here. What is proposed is the creation of an exception to C1. VegaDark (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As VegaDark correctly states, this discussion is proposing a change to an existing speedy deletion criterion. Although I don't feel strongly about it, I note that the biggest advantage of the existing criterion is that is simple to apply -- the category either has been empty for four days, or it has not. (In practice, I find that many of the empty categories were either created by mistake, or by users who didn't really understand the categorization process; or they were misnamed duplicates of other existing categories and simply have been abandoned.) If the criterion is changed so that admins have to explore why the category is empty, that will make the process more complicated and therefore make it less likely that this boring housekeeping work will ever get done. --Russ (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would ask someone to please explain why it is objectionable that Category:1669 novels be deleted, when Category:1661 novels, Category:1662 novels, Category:1663 novels, Category:1664 novels, Category:1665 novels, Category:1666 novels, and Category:1667 novels are all redlinks. Is it so difficult to recreate the category description page if/when it ever becomes populated? --Russ (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't feel strongly about it. But I'd like to note that I don't suggest changing the CSD criterion. The CSD policy is not a text of law and if there's agreement to leave these cats alone, then we just leave them alone. No need to write-in the exception, it's just an ignore all rules thing. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New speedy criteria proposal

Renames to match a disambiguated parent category such as Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state) from an unqualified name are eligible for speedy renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, but how about making this broad enough so it covers adding any disambiguation change following accepted conventions? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no objection if someone wants to change my proposal to expand it. I'm not sure how to safely reword. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I think I have a rewording that should work without creating any obvious loopholes. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Georgia rename criterion. These are commonly proposed and almost never opposed. I think there should be a presumption that the disambiguating term should be attached. Those wishing to remove it (e.g., for things that they argue only exist in one or the other, like U.S. highways) should bear the onus of getting a consensus to remove it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common incident that should be a speedy criteria. RedThunder 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Moving (renaming) cats

Registered editors can move article pages, but not categories? Only admins can move cats - is that right? If so, why? --Setanta747 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving" cats involves editing all the articles in those cats to reflect the new name. No reason why any user can't do it if it's non-controversial, but for large categories it's much quicker if a bot is used.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how does one know if it is not controversial? The process to nominate is quite simple and ensures that any controversies are aired. Also if you empty a category, you need an admin to delete it. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's any doubt, best to nominate it here first.--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've been out of sorts with Wikipedia recently, and forgotten a lot of things. I'm kinda getting back into the swing of things again, now. Thanks for the answers. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog -- needing deletion!

There're two discussions that have been opened way more than seven days, and I believe they should be deleted. Specifically, the categories are Category:Albums produced by James Stroud and Category:Albums produced by Kyle Lehning. I would think that, despite the ongoing discussion of categorizing albums by producer, these should be non-controversial deletions, as neither James Stroud nor Kyle Lehning has a page, and there's no point in categorizing for red linked people. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Categories improved

This has been overhauled with the help of Brion Vibber. Check it out. This may make it easier to find cfd worthy listings. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

backlog needs work

There are a ton of open discussions. I'm working on these but there are some that I participated in. Since it appears that no other admin is really working to clear this out, I will be closing ones I participated in when the consensus is clear. If you have an objection to this, kindly step in and close those. Also, I'm trying to do as many as possible right now so I'm ignoring those with complicated discussions. If someone can close those it would be appreciated. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]