Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please change this notice to {{No admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Skip to current discussions ·
|
|
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Categories for discussion (CfD) is where the renaming, merging or deletion of categories – i.e. pages in the Category namespace – is discussed and action decided. Stub types templates are also discussed here.
Categories are used to organize pages and aid the browsing of related articles. For instructions as to how to use this page, perform cleanup maintenance or request speedy deletions or renamings, see "How to use CfD" below. The policies meant to guide category renaming may be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made.
Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised.
When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it is usually helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.
Contents
Scope[edit]
CfD is only intended for discussions where an editor already has a clear action proposal in mind. For general brainstorming on how to improve the category system, good places for discussion include Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and the talk pages of any WikiProjects relevant to the content covered by the categories in question.
Current discussions[edit]
Discussions awaiting closure[edit]
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 18 (11 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 17 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 16 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 15 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 14 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 13 (8 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 12 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 8 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 7 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6 (12 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 5 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 4 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 3 (7 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 2 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 31 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 30 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 29 (7 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 28 (5 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 27 (6 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 26 (8 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 25 (2 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 24 (4 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 23 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 22 (7 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21 (7 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 20 (8 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 18 (1 open – Category:American people of the War in Afghanistan (2001–14))
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17 (1 open – "Pro-life" categories)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 16 (1 open – Diet advocates)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 11 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 21 (3 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 12 (1 open – Undersized Turkey geography stub categories)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8 (1 open – Roman Empire establishments (1st century and earlier))
How to use CfD[edit]
Procedure[edit]
To list a category manually for deletion, merging or renaming, follow this process:
I |
Preliminary steps.
Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming.
|
II |
Edit the category.
Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the category text of every category to be discussed. (The tags belong on the categories' main pages rather than their talk/discussion pages.)
|
III |
Create the CFD section.
Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries. Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), to copy and paste the template shown. All categories are specified without the
|
Once you have previewed your entry, please make sure to add your signature after your proposal.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]
While it is sufficient to list a category for discussion at CfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the CfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an category be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "C1" for unpopulated categories C2C "Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree".
- Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the CfD.
It may also be helpful to post a message on the talkpage of a related article, like Protein family for Category:Protein families. You can use {{Cfdnotice}}
for this.
- Notifying substantial contributors to the category
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the category and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page. You can use {{Cfd-notify}}
to inform the creator of the category, and {{Cfdnotice2}}
for all other editors.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.
Also, consider adding any categories you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle[edit]
The use of Wikipedia:Twinkle greatly facilitates CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to "my preferences", the "Gadgets" tab, the "Browsing" section and check "Twinkle ...". Use the now-installed "XfD" (Nominate for deletion) tab while viewing the page to be deleted or renamed.
Users without accounts and users with new accounts[edit]
Users without accounts (unregistered users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD).
Redirecting categories[edit]
It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)
However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)
Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}}
to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects.
In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.
You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.
Closing[edit]
When closing CfDs, document their results (e.g. with links to CfD page history) on the talk pages of the affected categories, if not deleted. If deleted, document the deletion decision in the deletion edit summary. See {{cfd top}}.
Special notes[edit]
When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.
If a category is only used as generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo-stub), and that template is deleted by a regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template, or mentioned early in the discussion.
Speedy renaming and merging
Categories may be listed for speedy renaming or speedy merging if they meet one or more of the criteria specified below. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. A request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.
Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for seven days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}
, and no delay is required to process these. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.
Contested requests become stale, and can be un-tagged and de-listed, after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}
. If the nominator wants to continue the process, they need to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.
Speedy criteria[edit]
The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
This criterion is split into four different sub-criteria:
-
- C2A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
- Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
- Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
-
- C2B. Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
- Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
- Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).
-
- C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names.
- This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
- This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
- This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
-
- C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
- Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
- This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
- This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result.
-
- C2E. Author request.
- This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within 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.
- 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 ~~~~
This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.
Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 12:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 70 open requests (. )
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 nominations[edit]
- Category:LSU Lady Tigers volleyball venues to Category:LSU Tigers women's volleyball venues – C2B: per LSU Tigers women's volleyball. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Roman taxes to Category:Taxation in ancient Rome – C2B per Category:Economy of ancient Rome and C2C per Category:Taxation by country Le Deluge (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:LSU Lady Tigers volleyball to Category:LSU Tigers women's volleyball – C2D: LSU Tigers women's volleyball is the article name Joeykai (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Background: LSU's current policy regarding "Tigers" versus "Lady Tigers" is that the latter is used only in sports that have varsity teams for both men and women. LSU sponsors varsity volleyball (whether indoor or beach) only for women; thus the proper nickname is "Tigers". — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Architecture of Kosovo to Category:Kosovan architecture – C2C per rest of Category:Architecture by country Le Deluge (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Bangladesh District Template to Category:Bangladesh district templates – C2A Le Deluge (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Speeches by Hillary Rodham Clinton to Category:Speeches by Hillary Clinton – C2C per Category:Hillary Clinton/C2D per Hillary Clinton. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Zombie Inc. games to Category:Zombie Studios games – C2D: Zombie Inc. was moved to Zombie Studios. The1337gamer (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Panachaiki players to Category:Panachaiki F.C. players – C2D, match name of parent article. GiantSnowman 09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Gas pipelines in Tanzania to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Tanzania – Reason C2C per rest of Category:Natural gas pipelines by country Le Deluge (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Opposed nominations[edit]
- Category:De La Salle Brothers schools in Hong Kong to Category:Lasallian schools in Hong Kong – C2C. BDD (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy because the current title was chosen in a recent full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers to Category:Sculptures by the Piccirilli Brothers – C2C per Category:Sculptures by artist Le Deluge (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- KEEP - this is a list of sculpture that the Piccirilli Brothers carved. They are mostly NOT the sculptors of these pieces. Please read or just skim our article on the Brothers before doing anything here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd appreciated that - but the new name doesn't imply that they are the sculptors, merely that they had a hand in the creation. Bear in mind that the category system is not intended to reflect all the subtle details, it merely serves to help people find things - and you'll find many, many articles in the "Sculptures by..." hierarchy that have many variations in the involvement of the person named. But we try to avoid WP:Overcategorization, we don't have a category for "Sculptures where Michaelangelo did the face but got his students to do the legs", that way madness lies. Since this category has to have "Piccirilli Brothers" and the nature of its content means that the name has to start with "Sculptures", then linking the two with "by" is the most parsimonious and elegant way of doing it. I'm not completely against the idea of a separate category, but would have to be convinced that it's not a WP:SMALLCAT.Le Deluge (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: it could be kept, but not at the current name. It should be "Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers" or something similar. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reply to @Le Deluge: I looked at the 68 entries at Category:Sculptures by artist and as far as I could tell all of them are sculptors, none are folks who "had a hand in the creation" of works by others. I did not go and look at all 68 of them, is this necessary to do? Perhaps you can point out a few examples? And this is NOT akin to your "Sculptures where Michaelangelo did the face but got his students to do the legs" - so madness does not lie in this direction. There are other carvers who could conceivably rate their own categories but most of them rare not even red links yet. As far as WP:SMALLCAT is concerned, I have continued adding to the category and it is now at 16, probably more than most of the sculptors have in theirs. I have identified about 90 works carved by the Brothers, most of with are not yet articles. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP, but alter - "Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers" may be the right solution. Piccirilli Brothers are best known for carving other sculptors' works. Category:Sculptures by the Piccirilli Brothers should be reserved for their own sculptures, which are not as well known. Cramming together other sculptors' works (carved by them) and the Piccirilli Brothers' own works will cause unnecessary confusion. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. "Sculptures by the Piccirilli Brothers" may be more elegant, but in this particular case "Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers" is more meaningful (I'm not a fan of the 'one size fits all without execption' approach to categorisation). It can still remain in the existing category tree. Sionk (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP okay, change to Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. Carptrash (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP - this is a list of sculpture that the Piccirilli Brothers carved. They are mostly NOT the sculptors of these pieces. Please read or just skim our article on the Brothers before doing anything here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Football 7-a-side players at the 1984 Summer Paralympics to Category:7-a-side footballers at the 1984 Summer Paralympics – C2C with rest of Category:7-a-side footballers at the Paralympics by year Le Deluge (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Empty categories do not need to be renamed. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Surely that's irrelevant? The category is a C2C regardless of content - and being named differently to the rest of the hierarchy will surely make it less likely to be used? It's a "plausible" category in that there was a competition in 1984, and was created by an editor who is very active in disabled sport articles (but is busy at the moment with the current Paralympics), so deletion seems all wrong.Le Deluge (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Empty categories do not need to be renamed. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:British Merchant Navy personnel of World War I to Category:British Merchant Service personnel of World War I – As explained in the appropriate article, it did not actually become the Merchant Navy until after WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose None of the speedy criteria applies to this proposeal. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, my mistake. Must have been tired. Should have been listed as a standard discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose None of the speedy criteria applies to this proposeal. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Women's Australian rules footballers to Category:Female players of Australian rules football – C2C. Category:Sportswomen by sport overwhelmingly favours "Female X" rather than "Women's X players", e.g. Category:Female players of American football. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose – article is Women's Australian rules football. Oculi (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- This was a C2C nomination, not a C2D. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Even then 10 out of 74 in Category:Sportswomen use 'women' including most football ones. And it is 'sportswomen'. This is not a speedy. Oculi (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Post office buildings to Category:Post offices – C2D; the article's always been at Post office since its creation in 2001, aside from one day when it was at Post offices, and post office building has only ever existed as a redirect to that title. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm erring towards opposing this change. In particular the Category:Sorting offices would no longer fit in a renamed category. And there are plenty of Post office buildings that are no longer used as post offices. Sionk (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - as well as Sionk's point, there's a more basic ambiguity between the national operating companies and individual buildings. Qv Category:Banks and Category:Bank buildings.Le Deluge (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:People from the Republic of Ragusa
to Category:Republic of Ragusa people – C2C.--Zoupan 02:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)to Category:Ragusan people – C2C: see subcategories of Category:Republic of Ragusa.--Zoupan 06:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)- Oppose – judging from Category:Ragusa, Ragusan is ambiguous and it is the other 'people subcats' of Category:Republic of Ragusa which should be renamed (and I think it should be Category:Republic of Ragusa people per eg Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people). Oculi (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Sunbeam (car company) to Category:Sunbeam Motor Car Company – C2D: rename to match its eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as the subcategories were not nominated. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Burmese Hakka people to Category:Burmese people of Hakka descent – consistency Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian Hakka people to Category:Canadian people of Hakka descent
- Category:Indonesian Hakka people to Category:Indonesian people of Hakka descent
- Category:Trinidad and Tobago Hakka people to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Hakka descent (adding this for consistency and completeness) HandsomeFella (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oppose Hakka is already an expatriate ethnicity, so that it is not necessary to add "descent". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: whether you're correct or not, this rename only creates consistency. It does not introduce any new categorization. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Peterkingiron: The fact that Hakka migrated from Northern to Southern China, and therefore are the "guest people" and outsiders is irrelevant. These Hakka people in these cases migrated all the way to North America, and so clearly are diaspora in this case.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Category:A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio 1932 to Category:Manfredonia Calcio – C2D Following the name change of the Wikipedia article: Manfredonia Calcio
LazyJob (talk)(matthew_hk alternative cleanup only account) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)- Category:A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio 1932 managers to Category:Manfredonia Calcio managers
- Category:A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio 1932 players to Category:Manfredonia Calcio players
- Oppose speedy Main article only recently moved, and without discussion... thus C2D isn't applicable. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The club NEVER called "A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio 1932" but "A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio", or historically "S.S. Manfredonia Calcio", according to news, register in Italian Chamber of Commerce, the club re-incorporated as a "Manfredonia Calcio S.r.l.s.d.". According to common name and new official site of the club, the club was just known as Manfredonia Calcio. So it is quite uncontroversial to move to "Manfredonia Calcio" for the article namespace. Matthew_hk tc 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. C2D is clear about this "This applies only if the related article's current name [...] is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename." Armbrust The Homunculus 16:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The club NEVER called "A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio 1932" but "A.S.D. Manfredonia Calcio", or historically "S.S. Manfredonia Calcio", according to news, register in Italian Chamber of Commerce, the club re-incorporated as a "Manfredonia Calcio S.r.l.s.d.". According to common name and new official site of the club, the club was just known as Manfredonia Calcio. So it is quite uncontroversial to move to "Manfredonia Calcio" for the article namespace. Matthew_hk tc 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy Main article only recently moved, and without discussion... thus C2D isn't applicable. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Compositions by Don Davis to Category:Compositions by Don Davis (composer) – C2D: Don Davis (composer). Trivialist (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oppose no other Don Davis is like to have created musical compositions. The only change needed is that his name should not be piped in the headnote, so that it is obvious what the main article is called. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Category:Olympic medalists for Canada to Category:Olympic medallists for Canada – C2A WP:ENGVAR Use Canadian English and not US English for a Canadian topic -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Canada to Category:Olympic bronze medallists for Canada – C2A ENGVAR Canadian English -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Olympic silver medalists for Canada to Category:Olympic silver medallists for Canada – C2A ENGVAR Canadian English -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Olympic gold medalists for Canada to Category:Olympic gold medallists for Canada – C2A ENGVAR Canadian English -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian Olympic medalist stubs to Category:Canadian Olympic medallist stubs – C2A ENGVAR Canadian English -- The associated stub template {{Canada-Olympic-medalist-stub}} also needs to be moved to {{Canada-Olympic-medallist-stub}} -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian Winter Olympic medalist stubs to Category:Canadian Winter Olympic medallist stubs – C2A ENGVAR Canadian English -- The associated stub template {{Canada-Winter-Olympic-medalist-stub}} also needs to be moved to {{Canada-Winter-Olympic-medallist-stub}} -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Is this necessary? I'm not Canadian, but I've been under the impression that Canadians use both spellings. All other categories except for GB use one L. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- One "L" is improper English and gets you big red circles in English class. Why should we use US English when it is a Canadian category? If you use an automated spellcheck and either it doesn't have a Canadian setting or you don't set it for Canadian, it will likely default to American, resulting in single-L uses. As well, people on the Internet use bad spellings. So, if we want to only use U.S. English, then use one-L. If we want to allow people to use the native English spellings then use two-L's; If the British categories are allowed to use two-L's then the Canadian ones should be allowed to use Canadian English and use two-L's. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think User:Tavix might be suggesting that spelling the word with two Ls or with one L are both acceptable in Canadian English. That's certainly been my experience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- If it isn't accepted by an English teacher for Canadian English, then we shouldn't use it for category names. It's acceptable to use many incorrect spelling in many different locations. I see people spell things "big fish" (instead of whale), "banana" (instead of plantain), "tyre" (instead of tire), "football" (instead of soccer), "honor" (instead of honour) ; and people accept the spelling without being overly excited about it, but it doesn't mean it's proper Canadian English. If we want to standardize on American English, we should do it for British categories as well. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Who is this "English teacher for Canadian English" you speak of? I was educated in Canada, and I think either spelling would be accepted by most English teachers there. The ones who wouldn't be those who have a particular "thing" for rejecting U.S. English, but in practical terms, Canadian English is often a mix of U.S. and British English and often either forms of spelling are acceptable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Several of my English teacher friends mark that way. "LL""L" Canadian News results shows a 3:1 preference for the double-L spelling, showing the preferred form in Canadian English. And it isn't British or American, it's Canadian, why should we use either American or British as the choices, instead of just using Canadian? ("honour"(Canada) not "honor"(US); "civilization"(Canada) not "civilisation"(UK);) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Mostly because there is no universally recognized thing called "Canadian English". It is a mis-mash to U.S. English and British English, and the standards are applied inconsistently and variably depending on where in Canada one chooses to assesses the language. Nova Scotia English is considerably different than Alberta English, and Ontario English is different still. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- By that standard, there's no such thing as British English or American English, since Cockney is different from that of The North; or Ebonics is not the same as Southern, etc -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, not exactly. There has been far more work towards establishing a "standard" British English and a "standard" American English than there has been for Canadian English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and officially oppose this then. There's no need to deviate from the spelling used for the rest of categories. I noted Great Britain is an exception, but unlike Canada, they don't use both spellings. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Where either variant is acceptable, there is no reason to break consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm a speaker of Canadian English, and one-l vs. two-ll in a word like "medal(l)ist" or "travel(l)er" is one of those things I and many other Canadians are entirely incapable of even keeping straight which one's the "American" spelling and which one's the "British/Canadian" one. There are certainly some "Canadian spellings" that are straightforward and easy to remember — cheque and centre over check or center, but tire and curb over tyre or kerb — but there are also many others where it's hard to keep track of which variant is the officially correct Canadian English form, and this is one of them. Nominator is welcome to take it to a full CFR if he feels strongly about it, but it's not appropriate for speedy. I would suggest, however, that the two-ll forms should be created as categoryredirects to the one-l, or the one-l forms kept as categoryredirects to the two-ll if CFR closes as a move, because there's clearly some dispute. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The point is that Americans are not working on the articles, so whether one-l is a valid form seems moot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- The point is that even Canadians largely don't know which spelling is "correct" in Canadian English and which one is "wrong" — we should probably have categoryredirects in place for whichever spelling we aren't actually using as the "real" category, so that articles don't accidentally get left sitting in redlinked categories by people using the other spelling, but "Canadian English" spelling of this word is not as clearcut as it's been made out to be. And anyway, the debate is never going to resolve here; it needs to be taken to a full CFD if anybody feels strongly enough about it, but the opposes here have already permanently killed any possibility of this ever being speedied. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose - issues of ENGVAR should be established at a full CFD, not in this page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
- Category:WikiProject Introduction members to Category:WikiProject Introductions members – C2D per WP:WikiProject Introductions Le Deluge (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Open-source attribution to Category:Free-content attribution – C2D: Category's associated template has been renamed from {{Open-source attribution}} to {{Free-content attribution}} to reflect its intended purpose. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy C2D is for matching the category to its eponymous article, and not a template. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Very astute of you, but don't you think the spirit of the criterion is met? I don't normally invoke WP:IAR, but I think in this case a more generous reading would help avoid some unnecessary bureaucracy. Or does your objection rest on something other than rote procedural grounds? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support speedy - per nom, clearly in the spirit of things as in this case the parent is clearly the template rather than an article. But C2D criterion could be clarified? Le Deluge (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think modifying the wording of C2D would be a great idea. Can this be done WP:BOLDly or should there be a talk-page discussion first? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- There should be a discussion first, at WT:CSD. You might do well to initially check the archives there. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done; see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Change "article" to "page" in C2D. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- There should be a discussion first, at WT:CSD. You might do well to initially check the archives there. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think modifying the wording of C2D would be a great idea. Can this be done WP:BOLDly or should there be a talk-page discussion first? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy C2D is for matching the category to its eponymous article, and not a template. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion[edit]
- None currently.
Ready for deletion[edit]
Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.
Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.
Categories possibly emptied out of process[edit]
Note. Categories listed here will be automatically moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 96 hours.
Note. Due to limits of the software, all contents of the category may not be displayed. View the category directly to see all contents.