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. MER-C 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Political view user templates to Category:Political user templates

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, because there is no distinction between the two categories, as previously noted by ChristTrekker. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It makes sense to me they are very confusing separate.Catfurball (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would much prefer to delete both categories and delete all their contents. Editors are here to build an NPOV encyclopedia, not to wave political placards around.

Yes, I know CFD only deal with categories; that's why I made this a comment rather than a !vote. I don't care either way what happens wrt this proposed renaming ... but really, both categories should be empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: that would be removal of at least a thousand pages (not all userboxes are categorized properly). Which venue should be used for such a discussion? An RfC of some sort? Going through MfD one-by-one will take forever. The rationale for removal of any and all such userboxes could be WP:5P1 (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) + WP:5P2 (WP:NPOV) + WP:UBCR (quote, emphasis mine: Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.) —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: what's your take on usersboxes about feminism? Should they also be removed? Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. For example, Template:User feminist uses File:Womanpower logo.jpg, classified on Commons as Category:Venus symbol with clenched fist – Category:Feminism symbols – Category:Political symbols. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak, it would need an RFC. And I'd happily extend it to include userboxes about editors' views or allegiances on anything and everything: religion, feminism, what sports teams they support, which foods they prefer.

However, I was only sounding off, and wouldn't actually waste my time proposing it. The problem is that despite that step being supported (as you noted) by core policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTSOCIAL etc, there are huge numbers of editors who have vested large chunks of their time in building userpages festooned with collections of userboxes. In general, I find a roughly inverse correlation between between an editors' substantive contribution to en.wp and the number of userboxes they display; but even those who come here intermittently for the primary purpose of farming userboxes get the same voice in discussions as those who have spent years churning out featured articles ... and those who are mostly here for the userboxes shout louder than those who avoid such discussions because they are busy building content.

For an example of how this sort of discussion goes, see WP:CFD/2018 December 15#Wikipedians_by_philosophy, which was shot down in flames. Such discussions are dominated by massively selective readings of WP:USERPAGE, in which the most passionate editors are those who believe that they are entitled to do what they like with their userpages. The core of WP:USERPAGE is "While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium", but that gets lost in the howls of indignation. It's very rare to find a closer who will actually uphold WP:NOTVOTE, and discount those who ignore the policy.

So I'd happily support such a proposal if you or anyone else wants to make it, but the proposer will need an asbestos suit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. (Can't believe someone referenced a comment I made 12 years ago.) 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 14:05, 15 July 2019 (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.

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 per ALT1. MER-C 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming either:

• ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos)

or

• ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)

Nominator's rationale: to make the title reflect the actual intended scope. The background is a little complex.

This category is for New Christians, i.e. people in Spain and Portugal who were coerced into converting to Catholicism, plus their descendants. The converts and their descendants were regarded by the authorities as of suspect sincerity, so a legal distinction applied between New Christians and Old Christians.

It was originally titled Category:New Christians, but that title was ambiguous. So at WP:CFD/2019 March 10#Category:New_Christians, it was decided to rename it to Category:New Christians (conversos), to remove ambiguity with the other meanings listed at New Christian (disambiguation).

A further discussion was launched by @IZAK at WP:CFD/2019 July 7#Category:New_Christians_(conversos), which was withdrawn.

However that leaves us with a problem: further investigation reveals that the word "converso" is used to refer to primarily (or maybe exclusively, I'm not sure) to forced coverts from Judaism, but not to forced converts from Islam (who were known as Moriscos). So the current title Category:New Christians (conversos) probably excludes those of muslim heritage, which was not intended.

After some discussion on my talk page, IZAK and I agreed that a clearly inclusive category name was needed, and narrowed it down to the two options above.

IZAK prefers ALT1, because of its clarity, and its explicit uses of both terms.

I prefer ALT2 for its brevity, but IZAK thinks it could be read as excluding the extensive Spanish Empire and Portuguese Empire, where the same legal framework applied: coerced conversion, followed by continued persecution. I think that the empires are implicit; but IZAK disagrees.

I prefer both these alternatives to the status quo, because the current title is clearly inadequate.

(Note i have tried to summarise @IZAK's views fairly, but if I have failed to do so, then I hope IZAK will correct me). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, without a clear preference for either alternative. This discussion takes a clearly different direction than the previous CfD discussion, because it was not clear before that the term "converso" does not include converted Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no strong preference, but probably ALT1 as Iberia would be liable to exclude those who in fact operated in their colonies in America. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (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.

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, consensus is clearly in favor of not deleting the respective categories in this discussion. Obviously though, since the original intent of the proposer was not to delete these categories, this is merely procedural in nature.

Regardless of the fact that this may be the wrong venue for this discussion, there was significant input from competent editors regarding the proposal as clarified by Trialpears. Consensus was clear that this change would be beneficial. I recommend Trialpears or any other interested editor implement the proposed changes, possibly with the assistance of a bot, if necessary. I don't see any need for me to delete any pages or any other administrator involvement in making the proposed changes, so I will close this discussion accordingly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose containerization Category:Wikipedia backlog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: NOTE: I'm not proposing deletion.

When categories of the type "X articles needing infoboxes" become backlogged they get placed directly in Category:Wikipedia backlog. Since there are so many categories of this type Category:Wikipedia backlog consist of about 50% infobox backlogs making it difficult to use. I suggest that these infobox request categories, when backlogged, instead should be categorised into a new Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog in the same way assesment backlogs are categorised into Category:Wikipedia assessment backlog.

This change would be implemented by creating ((Infoboxbacklog)) analogous to ((Assessbacklog)) and replacing ((backlog)) with ((Infoboxbacklog)) for all categories in Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request.

-Trialpears (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: Can you elaborate? Why is Category:United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes tagged for deletion for this? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it says deletion (I put containerization in the template), but it's tagged since the backlog template will be changed to the new infoboxbacklog template if this proposal is succesful. This is because as it stands the category would be placed in Category:Wikipedia backlog if it were to become backlogged in the future. Instead I suggest that it should be placed in the new container category Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. This would make the category easier to use for finding infobox backlogs as well as other backlogs. I want to emphasize that this has been done before with assessment backlogs and I see no reason why the same shouldn't be done with infobox requests as there are about as many categories of both types. --Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I've been away from the CfX pages too long... but why have you brought this here? This page is normally for deletion, merging, and renaming of categories. If you think that a category tree needs adding to, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories is usually the place to go, or for a useful parent category. Another option would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Or just add it yourself. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't have time to look into the technicalities, but this is normally to propose deletion and I think having per-project categories is useful to its members. —PaleoNeonate – 01:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Has the problem already been solved? There are only 36 pages directly in this category now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, but feel free to mark them all as ((tracking category)) or ((maintenance category)), plus ((empty category)), if they aren't already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First I want to say that I'm not proposing to delete any category, just add the container category Category:Wikipedia infobox backlogs]. The reason it says deletion in the notice is that the type= paramter in the template isn't working properly, where I specified containerization. Second I'm sorry if this isn't the usual avenue for containerisation discussions, should I close discussion and move it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes of the discussion or should this discussion be continued here? -- Trialpears 10:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  it's looking like it'll be a keep (understandable, with no nomination to delete). Let things take their course as far as closure's concerned, but then move discussion to the wikiproject page. Grutness...wha? 04:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (having seen the box at the top of Category:Rail transport articles needing infoboxes) As I understand it, the proposal is to alter one of the parent categories for each of the nominated categories. That is not a CfD matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The roads projects certainly use their own categories and would prefer to not have to go through random articles of other subjects. --Rschen7754 18:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I use the anatomy category all the time. Please don't fix something that's working fine. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Either almost none of the above "keep"ers actually read the proposal or the nom changed the proposal after they've commented. I really hope its the latter, as if it isn't, this discussion is a shocking display. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Gonnym Only change to the nomination was adding "NOTE: I'm not proposing deletion." I believe the issue was that the notice message said the categories were nominated for deletion instead of containerization because of some template problems (for some reason the type parameter isn't actually pased to the module even though the module supports it). There also seems to be a need for some documentation updates if containerization discussions doesn't belong here anymore. I will discuss these changes after this mess is closed. -- Trialpears (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I understood why there was confusion, but I do expect people responding on XfD discussions to actually read the proposal and not blindly oppose. --Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As of this writing, approximately 129 of the 293 subcategories listed in Category:Wikipedia backlog are "X articles needing infoboxes", "X articles without an infobox" or similar, so the nominator's proposal would likely improve categorization and editor usage of the main backlog category. Just not sure if this is the best venue for this proposal. LJ ↗ 18:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yeah, I think we should split off what backlogs we have. I'd like to see the same things with images, and otherwise too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to make the category system more useful for navigating to different kinds of backlogs. Honestly, I have no idea what the ideal forum is to discuss moving 540 categories (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion seemed like a good bet, but obviously this has led to confusion). @DannyS712, PaleoNeonate, Headbomb, Grutness, Rschen7754, and Tom (LT): (pinging folks whose comments don't seem to address the intended question) the proposal is to move 540 categories of the format Category:XXXX articles needing infoboxes to a new parent category Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog as these categories currently take up most of Category:Wikipedia backlog, making it hard for humans to use. Apologies for the ping if you already understood and I misunderstood your comment. Ajpolino (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I understood it - it's just that CfD is not the place for such a discussion. What you're looking for is a new parent to the infobox categories which would itself be a subcategory tree of the existing category. CfD is for deletion, merging, and renaming - hence the opposition !votes to deletion by people who didn't fully read the proposal. You should take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes, with a note pointing to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. The only real question would be whether it should be at Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog or Category:Articles needing infoboxes, the latter of which seems more in line with similar categories. The only problem is that the latter name is already in use for bot tasks, so it would need further discussion at the talk pages I mentioned above. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grutness: I suggested Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog for consistency with Category:Wikipedia assessment backlog which works the exact same way as this will. --Trialpears (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To get back on point - whether this is the correct venue or not, I support re-organizing the Category:Wikipedia backlog to only be a top level category and for its direct sub-categories to be main topic categories. This will indeed allow better access to editors that are looking to work on a specific set. --Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Split for better workability. Agathoclea (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal, regardless of it being in the wrong place. No comment on any of the individual categories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the OP's proposal, per the previous similar split done with assessment backlogs. Nole (chat·edits) 06:05, 5 August 2019 (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.

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gyllene Tider members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per long-standing consensus of Category:Musicians by band, "categories should not be created when only one member has an article". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:22, 11 July 2019 (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.

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. MER-C 09:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Lists of userboxes to Category:Userbox galleries — for galleries only in Wikipedia namespace. Top category.
  • Rename Category:Themed Wikipedian userboxes to Category:User namespace themed userbox galleries — will become a subcategory of Userbox galleries.
  • Rename Category:Userbox galleries to Category:Personal userbox galleries — for galleries in userspace, which are not grouped by a theme; will become a subcategory of Userbox galleries.

This is a fresh, hopefully more clear discussion, after closing of previous discussion.

• The rationale is:
  • use more clear name: using the word "Gallery" instead of "List";
  • allow clean up in Category:Lists of userboxes, as stated by ElectroChip123 in the previous discussion: The root problem is that "mainspace" galleries such as "Wikipedia/Userboxes/Galleries/Food" are being lumped in with "User:XYZ/UBX/asdfa/a/g" galleries. This results in an un-navigable mess.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Some of these lists are a mess I agree with that, some of them have way to many userboxes added that is keeping them from appearing which is a shame.Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2019 (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.