< March 13 March 15 >

March 14

Category:Meredith Brooks and Category:Stefy

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 result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON and numerous precedent of similar musician categories. With only songs and albums to categorize and interlinks between the two subcats, these eponymous parent cats are too general and simply not necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Missing songwriters

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 result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 15:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The songswriters aren't missing (so not a subcategory of Category:Missing people) just that there is no information about who the songwriters are in the articles for these songs. As a maintenance category, I would think this could be populated automatically if something was set up to add this category to articles in which the "writer" field in Song and Single infoboxes aren't filled. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response. As per text in category, there is a category Category:Songwriter unknown where the songwriter is likely to remain unknown. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Category:Non-governmental organizations by subject

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 result of the discussion was: merge/rename as specified. MER-C 11:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: "NGO" is a term coined in 1945 by the intergovernmental U.N., at a period of time and in a particular context where non-governmental organizations played a much lesser role than they do today.
Today, the huge majority of organizations aren't government agencies, the latter being the rare exception in modern pluralist societies. In fact, the very term organization (or organisation for those who prefer that spelling variant) has become rather synonymous with private, non-governmental activities. At the same time, the definition of an NGO remained very vague, including advocacy groups backed by profitable companies or states. In fact, many organizations considered NGOs rely on government money, in some (though certainly not most) cases making them the mouthpieces of governments' interests.
This is not about discussing the merits or blunders of NGOs. I'm only saying that if even Category:Private spaceflight companies are considered Category:Space non-governmental organizations, they don't really have anything in common with, say, Category:Islamic Relief organizations or Category:Poverty and hunger non-governmental organizations, except that by legal status both are no government agencies. This distinction might have had its merits in the early days of Wikipedia, but today tens of thousands of articles would have to be bulked together as Non-governmental organizations of one or the other kind. They aren't, as we have instead focussed on categorizing by subject, activity, membership or legal status of organizations, see Category:Organizations, a scheme that clearly works better. And reflecting society, Category:Government with all its agencies and institutions now is just a subcategory, a specific type of organization.
For years, I thought about getting this problem tackled, but found no way to do so, and in the meantime nothing really happened, except for the NGO tree getting more and more arbitrary and basically broken beyond repair. It's time we do away with the remainders of our effectively broken NGO categorization scheme, even if the term continues to be used in some countries, or for some organizations, and though it may continue to be used in the respective articles. --PanchoS (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose that per WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Politicians convicted of sex offences

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 result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I want this category to be considered for deletion. There are no occupational categories in Category:People convicted of sex crimes and I don't know if this is a category tree that Wikipedia should build up and extend. What's next, Actors convicted of sex crimes and Accountants convicted of sex crimes? Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections of a Merge of Category:Politicians convicted of sex offences to Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: That isn't true as many of the politicians came into contact with their victims through their office. For example, Milton Orkopoulos AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, for many of those included in the category, such as Shawn Christian (mayor), Steve Christian and Mike Warren (mayor) their status and politicians and sex offenders was a defining intersection. AusLondonder (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the 19 articles (not a great time) and I only found 3 where the sex offenses stemmed form their political power: Charles Taylor, Bill Kramer, Moshe Katsav. (Based on your comment, I assume Milton Orkopoulos is a 4th and the article just doesn't give that background.) We disagree on the importance of the political angle with the Pitcairn sex abuse. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Orkopoulos's victim was a young staffer who he took to Parliament House and assaulted. I believe the Pitcairn case is clearly related to political power and three of the most senior political figures on an island of 60 were involved in sexual offending. AusLondonder (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Jain organizations

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 result of the discussion was: rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Satisfies the criteria of WP:STRONGNAT, so should use Indian English spelling. Also a child cat of Category:Religious organisations based in India AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense for ENGVAR issues to apply. So even if no-one has documented it previously, IAR. I'd enjoy seeing the feathers fly if we had a Category titled "International Cricket organizations". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:2016 establishments in Portland, Oregon

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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Establishments are done by state not by city. Cities much larger than Portland- London, Tokyo, New York, don't have establishment categories. There was this CFD[2] for a Richmond Virginia establishments category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to keep as creator. I like being able to focus on the city level and not just the state level, and I wouldn't mind seeing similar categories for other major cities, when they are appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Mayors of Joplin, Missouri

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 result of the discussion was: dual upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category only has 1 entry. Also merge the category's entries in Mayors of places in Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Big cats of India

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 result of the discussion was: rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A) To match parent category, Category:Felids; b) to match sibling categories (the only two yet – the rest are on my to-do list) Category:Felids of Africa and Category:Felids of Central America; c) "big" is an artificial categorization with nothing really to do with taxonomy, an unclear criterion, and it will not permit clean categorization (there is no "small cats" equivalent term, and all the other cats that should be in here will not fit into "Category:Felines of India", since they're not all Felis, but various genera like Prionailurus, etc.; d) there are not enough articles to bother with two categories anyway, while combining the "small" cats presently in Category:Mammals of India into one category with the "big" ones will produce a nice felids category like the African and Cent. Am. ones, and will help clean up what should eventually be a container category at the mammals parent category.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Populist parties in the United States

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 result of the discussion was: delete. Note there are similar categories in other countries that might be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While radical populism can be described as an anti-elitist doctrine of fully subscribing to "power of the (ordinary) people" against established interests, populist rhetorics has usually been a tool to rally the people against some perceived or real common opponent, often the political establishment. Other parties tend to refer to populism in order to pretend their particular policies were supported by large majorities, though in fact they weren't.
So except for radical populism, this is not about a somewhat cohesive ideology, but about a political tool that has been used for various goals and is particularly hard to define and delineate. And while the argument in favor of collecting articles associated with Populism in the United States has some merits, it remains problematic.
Inclusion especially can't be based on various parties' names, infering "Populist Party" had any particular similarity in being more populist than other parties. In fact, these parties are so disparate that they don't really have much in common and can be more adequately categorized than as "Populist parties in the United States." PanchoS (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:South Asian cricketers who have acted in movies

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 result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:South Asian cricketers who have acted in movies to Category:Cricketers who have become actors
Nominator's rationale: I've just come across this one and I know that at first glance it might seem like overcategorisation but I think it's worth saving with a rename. Obviously the "South Asian" has to go - it doesn't fit any of the hierarchies, and there's no global category at present. But cricketers who have gone into acting is probably enough of a "thing" that one could write an article on it, even if it is less apparent to Western eyes and certainly USian ones. Obviously the subcontinent blurs the lines most heavily between cricket and showbiz, but one can go back to C. Aubrey Smith who is probably the only England captain with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and even the likes of Dale Steyn and Derek Pringle have appeared in films aside from all the Bollywooders. It's not a category I'd defend to the death, and I'm not tied to the exact wording, but any thoughts? Le Deluge (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Officials of provincial-ministerial level and above born after 1960

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 result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 23:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Officials of provincial-ministerial level and above born after 1960 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly random intersection of two characteristics. Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also welcome coverage of the topic in the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

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 result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy (see discussion below). The article is at United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, so this proposal would bring the article name and category name into conformity per C2D. The name of the article conforms with the relevant article name convention in WP:NCGAL. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
I have advocated for my view, because (naturally) I feel that it is a correct one and the one that leads to the best results. But I have never suggested that opposing views on the subject are invalid, as you seem to be suggesting about mine. I have no desire to change the criteria themselves nor to make such a proposal, as you've suggested I do a number of times; what I am advocating is flexibility in applying them as they are currently written.
Users (should) get to set the own parameters of their own arguments, so that's all I'm asking that you acknowledge. If you cannot engage with such advocacy and discussion and only view it as "moaning"—then please!—just ignore it! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Ol’factory, my complaint is that instead of taking the asdvocacy and discussion to its proper venue by opening an RFC, you take this procedural issue to CFD after CFD, repeating the same meta-discussion in numerous places. That's no way to resolve the issue; it's just a disruptive repetition which cannot resolve your complaint. That's why I describe it as tendentious moaning.
As to the legitimacy of other views ... sheesh. Get a mirrror.
For several months now, you have been busy criticising those you disagree with as inflexible pedants who read the criteria as they are written rather than interpreting them according to your viuew to mean something other than the words they say.
There are several possible solutions to this. You could stop trying to use CFD/S for moves which yuou know are likely to be opposed, and save yourself time and energy by taking them directly to full CFD. Or you could open an RFC to either change the speedy criteria or seek a consensus for your inter[retation of them.
You are an experienced editor, so why not try one of the paths which could resolve this? I would be happy to work with you in drafting an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"CFD after CFD ..."—yeah, bringing it up twice in ten weeks is pretty disruptive. (eye roll). And as you'll notice, other editors raised the issue in this discussion, so I've raised it exactly once. But if you don't like what we discuss or the venue we discuss it in, just don't participate or ignore it. It's possible to build consensus on an issue outside of the venue that you view as ideal. I can understand how it could make you uncomfortable, though. There are three of us in this discussion alone who are more or less on the same page, so it's unfortunate that you can't at least acknowledge that the words as written can mean different things to different people. I've never said you are wrong or that your views are illegitimate—being pedantic is not wrong, it's just placing an emphasis in things that are ultimately not as important as other things. It would be nice if such an acknowledgement was reciprocated. Thanks for all the advice, though—you can rest assured that it was fully considered. I'm pretty happy right now with how I spend my time and energy, though. I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, so your suggestion that I am doing otherwise is off the mark. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GO, you have been editing for long enough to be well aware of WP:MULTI, yet here you are explicitly championing the idea of pursuing your campaign in multiple venues, and trying to sneer at me for challenging that. Very poor conduct, esp for an admin.
I'm also rather fed up with your vague claims that the words as written can mean different things to different people ... which you repeat, without ever clarifying what you read the words to mean. Your point seems to be instead that you can interpret them as you like, without ever pinning down any coherent meaning to them, and that you should be free to berate editors who read them at face value ... and still whine when your non-textual reading is challenged.
Rather than seeking a consensus to clarify where the limits of CFD/S actually lie, your aim appears to be to simply browbeat editors who object to your proposed moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're wrong about my aim and motives. You're even wrong about the sneer, and the browbeating, the vagueness, and the suggestion that I am "championing" this in multiple venues. I've been casually discussing it when it arises—there has been no concerted plan on my part to organize a structured discussion on it. I clarified some of the ways I interpret the guidelines in a previous (but still ongoing) discussion where this issue first arose. My comment was very long, and I won't repeat it here. See my comments below on the "mean what it says" approach, though. If you're fed up with me, you can always just walk away from the discussion; no one's compelling you to continue with it. I'm just not as into it as you seem to be suggesting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The aim of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is precisely to avoid the sort of complex interpretation processes which the courts engage in. We could have CFD/s criteria written as a loose of principles open to interpretation, but we don't; we have a set of precise criteruis which editors should be entitled to read as a set of precise criteria.
Sorry, SMcCandlish but "interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] view to mean something other than the words they say" is exactly what GO was advocating at CFD 2016 February 10#Category:MediaCorp. In that case, GO threw all their toys out of the pram because editors blocked a move which didn't meet the criterion chosen. There was no ambiguity: even GO made no attempt at all to claim that the category in question actually met C2D. GO's argument was simply that the move seemed like an uncontroversial good idea ... but that's not what any of the speedy criteria permit. All of the speedy criteria are about precisely-defined technical circumstances, which simply didn't apply. GO writes above that I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, which is utterly untrue: the MediaCorp nomination was of a category which GO knew did not meet the criterion, and which they knew would be opposed.
This case is a partial re-run: the article title is neither stable, nor the result of an RM discussion.
However well-intentioned a move proposal, it is dishonest to seek to justify it by a criterion whose plain English meaning is wholly unmet (as with Mediacorp), or to insist that it is uncontroversial when there is a reasoned objection (this case).
I can well understand and respect the argument that there should be a looser approach to CFD/S, permitting moves which are believed to be uncontroversial housekeeping, but don't fit any of the existing criteria. I am genuinely unsure whether I would support it, but I am sure that there is a reasonable case to be made for it. As I suggested before, it could be something along the lines of WP:G6 "C2F: housekeeping and other uncontroversial moves".
It's time for GO and others to either put up or shut up: seek consensus for those few extra words to meet your requirements ... or stop whining about the fact that other editors are aware that there is currently no such clause. In the meantime, a full CFD is no big deal: it is time-consuming only of there are objections ... but since en.wp works by consensus, anything is time-consuming if there are objections.
Oh, and it's all v well citing WP:BOLD ... but that guideline specifically warns that extra caution should be applied to category moves, because they affect multiple pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies, guidelines, procedures, essays with project-wide acceptance as best practices, information pages, principles statements, etc. (i.e. "rules") all "mean what they say", including BOLD, IAR, NOT#BUREAUCRACY, 5P, EDITING, LAWYER, and COMMONSENSE. We can't not take those particular ones at face value with one hand, then with the other take one single policypage to be – no matter what – "meaning what it says", since all these rules tell us not to do that. It's a tautology (in the self-proof sense). When in doubt, we follow the spirit of the rules, not the most nit-picky way they can be interpreted, if that interpretation and the spirit are in conflict. None of our process exists for it's own sake; it's all a means to an end, which should not be thwarted by the means that serve it. Otherwise it's just a cutting-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face problem. Whether GC sometimes makes mistakes doesn't seem pertinent; last I looked, we all do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, SMcCandlish, is that you and Good Ol’factory are trying to have things both ways at once.
You cite WP:LAWYER, WP:COMMONSENSE etc ... but there is nothing on this earth more lawyerly or less commonsensical than trying to claim that a precisely-worded instruction should be read as meaning something so completely different to its very precise words that editors get berated for pointing out that there is zero correlation with the criterion. That just propels us us into a madhouse where we all read as Humpty Dumpty speaks: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Whether you like it or not, the fact is that WP:C2A/B/C/D/E is a set of very precise instructions, and has been such ever since its creation. You and GO both point to a plausible case that such precision contravenes fundamental policies, and I assume that you are both sincere in doing so.
So, why not set out your case, and seek consensus for changes to the speedy criteria so that their plain English meaning reflects your view of what they should mean?
You see, WP:Consensus is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. The current consensus is that the bots move categories in only 2 situations: a) after a consensus discussion, or b) if the case meets one or more of a set of tightly-defined criteria. You are quite right to point out that all policies and guidelines are a means to an end ... and one of the key goals in this case is to ensure category changes (which by definition affect many articles) have prior consensus, to avoid disruptive ping-ponging. That's why WP:BOLD urges caution wrt to categories.
Don't forget too that bots are not allowed to be WP:BOLD: there must be a prior consensus for bot actions, and even for manual AWB usage. CFD/S actions are implemented by bots, and those bots need a consensus backing.
As I noted above closest parallel to this is WP:CSD, which does include a "general housekeeping" clause for deletion (WP:G6). CFD/S does not include such a clause ... yet you and GO want CFD/S to be read as if it was there. GO even wants to be able to berate other editors for challenging GO's use of criteria which the relevant category clearly fails!
So why not just sort this out, and clarify whether the current wording reflects consensus?
We could add a rider at the top to indicate that these criteria are all fuzzy, and editors are free to interpret them however they like. We could add a loose WP:G6 equivalent. Or we could create some sort of WP:PROD equivalent, with no criteria, but explicitly stoppable by any challenge. Or maybe there are other possibilities ... but whatever option might be chosen, editors have a right to expect that a policy means what it says, and not something completely different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand both sides very well in this discussion, on the one hand it's frustrating when someone objects without a reason or with a stupid reason, on the other hand it is pretty arbitrary to label a reason as stupid while there aren't any further guidelines about the definition of stupid. I think we should clarify the rules when we can, to avoid this kind of discussions. For example, in a previous discussion about a category rename following an article rename I proposed to consider an article rename stable after one month as a reasonable default period. We can always still deviate from a default by discussion, but at least if we adopt a default like this we don't have to discuss on every occasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we did do something like that, I'm not sure that it would reduce the incidence of the so-called "stupid" objections. We created C2D for a similar reason—to avoid having to discuss it every time a user proposed matching the category name to the corresponding article name. But users still fairly routinely object to the application of C2D, even when it clearly meets any user's interpretation of the criteria, and there are still extensive discussions for particular categories as to whether the C2D principle should apply or not. From what I have seen, users generally oppose when they want to oppose at WP:CFDS—it doesn't much depend on the actual content of the criteria that are being relied on. (That said, I would agree that a month after a move without any controversy or discussion regarding that move should be considered "stable enough", and I would probably support an arbitrary guideline like this if it was proposed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this should have been discussed on a User talk page
A problem with the "it means what it says" approach is that many words are not particularly precise (multiple related but differing definitions, differences in regional usage, etc.), especially in the English language, and when they are combined into phrases or sentences in English, they often become even less so. BrownHairedGirl appears to not even be able to conceive that a word, or a phrase, or a sentence might not mean exactly what s/he interprets it as meaning. That demonstrates quite a healthy esteem for one's own views, but it's also a little bit close-minded, whether deliberately or accidentally. If that barrier cannot be overcome, I'm not sure there is much point in continuing discussion. User:BrownHairedGirl, you seem surprised that few editors are keen to start a discussion on these matters in other forums, as you've suggested. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there might be a reason for that that doesn't involve the substance of this issue but rather involves the parties that would be involved in the discussion. Whisper: maybe we're just not excited about discussing this if you are going to be involved. ...
I must respond, though, to a suggestion made above that I am lying: it was stated above that "GO writes above that I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, which is utterly untrue: the MediaCorp nomination was of a category which GO knew did not meet the criterion, and which they knew would be opposed.". No, I actually believed it did meet the criterion (I still do—that's the very genesis behind the discussion relating to the suggestion there's more than one way to interpret the criteria), and although I knew that it had been opposed once, I did not think users would oppose it again once I provided further explanation of why it was an uncontroversial move. And you know—I was partially right. The user who opposed it initially did not oppose it again, though you did. I did not anticipate the type of opposition you set out, which I view essentially as process for process' sake. So please, User:BrownHairedGirl, feel free to continue to discuss, but I would draw a line with suggesting that you know what I (or other users, for that matter) thought or believed. I don't really care if you ridicule me and suggest that I'm acting like a baby and that I threw my toys out of my pram—that's fun, and I enjoy it because I take the source into account and understand that it's hyperbole and not to be taken literally. But I don't like it when it's suggested by anyone that I am dishonest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GO, I see two possibilities here. One is that you are not telling the truth when you say that I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed. The other is that you genuinely believe that Mediacorp met the criteria set out in plain English at WP:C2D ... and that you genuinely believed that a proposal clearly rejected on straightforward procedural grounds was unlikely to be rejected again, even tho the procedural circumstances were unchanged (and you made no attempt to claim that they had changed).
I have repeatedly challenged you to explain how you believe that category to fit the terms of C2D ... and you have repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, you make a vague wave to broad principles which you believe justify overlooking the precise phrasing of C2D. However, at no point in these discussions have you ever attempted to set out any explanation of how you read C2D to justify its use in that case.
I can see the case for an IAR approach. My point all along has simply been that if we are going to have IAR speedies at CFD/S, a consensus to do so should be established through centralised discussion, and the guidelines should be clear about that, possibly along the lines of WP:G6.
However, you repeatedly insist that I am unable to consider a different interpretation. That is entirely false -- the issue here is that there is no other explanation to consider because you repeatedly refuse to explain how you came to read the words as permitting your proposed renaming of MediaCorp, other than by ignoring them. If you don't want to explain it, that is up to you -- but in that case you should stop trying to smear me as someone who won't listen to the explanation which you refuse to give. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your options were either that the person was lying or that you weren't getting the straight answer that you desired—so you chose the lying option??! Next time try assuming the best about someone rather than assuming that they are a liar. It's not a great way to operate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) GO, I repeat that I am very happy to consider a different interpretation. However, you have refused to offer that interpretation, and even when challenged again you make a vague wave rather than posting a diff. One of the reasons that I point to dishonest conduct is that you repeatedly smear me as refusing to consider a case which you refuse to set out. That is, in your phrase, "not a great way to operate".
One claim which you have repeatedly made is that my objection was "process for process sake". I happen to believe that there is an important reason for the process there, and am happy to accept that others may sincerely attach less significance to that process; that is legitimate disagreement.
But the point at stake here is your separate repeated insistence that the words of C2D can be read in such a way as to permit that move. The explanation of 'how those words can be read in that way is what you still refuse to provide, even while you proceed to smear me as someone unwilling to consider what you haven't written.
Theoretically, it may possibly be the case that you are genuinely unable to distinguish between a) applying WP:IAR and b) reading the text differently. If that's the case, then this discussion will continue to be circular ... but having seen your contributions over many years, I doubt it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't call other editors liars—that's completely out of bounds and no amount of after-the-fact explanation or attempting to accuse me of "smearing" (oh, the irony) is going to take away that you assumed the absolute worst about another editor. For the record, I'm not refusing to provide what you want. I have provided it elsewhere—not in this discussion, because it's not particularly relevant and it deals with a different discussion. If you have missed it, I'm not going to repeat it, because it is longish I just don't care that much whether you are personally satisfied by my answers or not. Better things to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

States of Nigeria

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 result of the discussion was: keep. Four editors (whether they !voted or not) had a preference for all pages/categories to be at StateName State, and another recorded a formal Oppose at least for the ambiguous ones; only two would give priority to making the categories match the article names. Therefore I do find a consensus to "keep", rather than the alternative outcome "no consensus". – Fayenatic London 23:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: All of these are C2D speedy-type changes: "Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name". I propose renaming the categories to match the corresponding article names.
The articles for states of Nigeria are not named in a unified fashion, nor should they be, since every name presents unique considerations. Some are in the format "FOO State", some are in the format "FOO (state)" and some are in the undisambiguated form "FOO", either because they are unambiguous or they are the clear primary meaning. In contrast, all of the categories have been named "FOO State". The category system should not be attempting to enforce a conformity in naming practice that does not exist in article space. Many of the state names have never been discussed and could be, which could perhaps eventually result in a more unified naming scheme. However, until that happens via article discussions, there are no good reasons for the principle of C2D to not apply in these cases.
There are many subcategories; if categories are renamed as a result of this discussion, I commit to nominate the subcategories as follow-up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to rename to Category:Plateau (state), that should be alright, shouldn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example of why we need the category names to match the article names—it avoids having RM discussions in article space and then duplicating them again at CFD. Peterkingiron's comment is the sort of argument to be made in discussing what the article should be named. No one is moving to discuss these article names at RM, yet everyone is scared to rename the categories to match? Pick a lane! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Abia, Adamawa, Benue, Cross River, Edo, Imo, Ogun, Osun, Plateau and Taraba. The name is ambiguous or is mainly used for something else, so is always qualified
  2. Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Jigawa, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Yobe and Zamfara. The name almost always refers to the state and is rarely qualified.
For the first type Abia State is better than Abia (state) for both the article name and matching category, because that is how it is always written. A check on "what links here" shows that most links are to Abia State, and the few links to Abia (state) are artificial. The articles in the first set should be moved to their common names, which would match the present categories. For the second set the change to make the category match the article name is reasonable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a task to be pursued via WP:RM, and not in CFD. But no one ever pursues it there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory: I see now that in September 2005 User:Jamie Tubers moved the first set with edit summaries like "Moved page Taraba State to Taraba (state): more appropriate dab". Why that is a more appropriate dab is beyond me, when the article text will always say "he was governor of Taraba State" or maybe "she was born in Taraba state" but will never say "is the principal river of Taraba (state)". If you request a move of the articles back to their natural titles at WP:RM and canvas me, I will support your proposal. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the offer. I'm not going to propose moving any articles, though, as I don't have any strong preferences or views as to what would be most appropriate. I'm just proposing here to match the category names with the existing article names. If the article names ever change, then I would support renaming the categories to match the new names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here because I was pinged by Aymatth2; well, the articles were moved because per WP:COMMON, the subjects brings up higher number of searches, when without the "state", than otherwise. Couple with the fact that the official name is without "state", made the moving necessary.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the official name of the states are set out in the constitution, and "State" is not included in any of the state names. Official sources sometimes include the "State", as with state seals and websites and the like, but that would simply be an official usage, not the official name that is established by law. But, as you say, the common name is more relevant so this is kind of a side issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't read the entire comments here, so am not sure if I am supporting or opposing anything, but what I know is that for uniformity sake, it is best if all states are in the form stateName State. Many of these states have different notable and popular meanings. Osun and Ogun are gods, Lagos is ambiguous, etc. But when you say Osun State, Ogun State, Lagos State, etc. It is exactly clear what you mean. The same should apply for the categories. Darreg (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More