Categories
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 6 May 2006, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The result of the discussion was page moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Quick question: I believe there are rules against emptying categories that have been nominated for deletion (or merging), but apart from WP:C2F (...provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination.), is there any other? I couldn't find any. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I don't know where it's written down, but it'd be considered out of process. This also applies to categories not nominated for deletion - you shouldn't empty them unless you are removed articles that don't fit in the category, i.e. it shouldn't be used as a way to bypass CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been discussed here before. A lengthy example from 2020 was Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? TSventon (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon Oh wow! Pity that no consensus was reached on a wording and where to include it. Looks like a lot of unfinished business. The conversation evolved into an informal vote that was never closed, so it may be a lot of wasted time... Part of me wants to finish the job, the other part is seriously discouraged by the heap of stuff to trawl through. @Qwerfjkl Can we just go for a WP:CR, or not because it wasn't a formal discussion to begin with, and we should start over with an RfC or something?

At any rate, I was asking because yesterday I was writing a lengthy reply to someone who had nominated a category for deletion, which I didn't think was necessary. But as I was writing, the whole category was rapidly being emptied, which was really annoying and frustrating. It also happened before with Albania at the Turkvision Song Contest or something, which was nommed per WP:C2F against that very policy's criteria of not emptying categories before nominating. I want a simple rule that I can link to whenever I see someone emptying a nominated category out of process. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Instead of an RfC, I could write an essay summarising previous precedents, incidents and text proposals about not emptying nominated categories? It's a step between an unwritten rule and an official rule, it's something people can link to, and it can be updated and perhaps eventually upgraded to an official rule. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, a CR of what? This discussion? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, no, a request to close Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, that can't be closed because it wasn't an RfC and it has already been archived. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, that confirms what I thought. Do think an essay would help, or should this really go to RfC? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl Hi, I've been trying to set up an essay here: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process Do you think this might help? I've included some examples / cases studies under "precedents", but so far none of them appear to have led to sanctions. (I hope I'm not suggesting the editors involved should have been sanctioned, I'm just noting they weren't). Do you know cases where sanctions were taken? Otherwise I fear this remains a sort of 'unpunishable crime'. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I suggest you ask the CfD regulars, because I mostly close discussions. That said, it looks good to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been complaining about this for years, and while the essay is fine as far as it goes, really we need a clear determination that this is wrong, so that the language in it can be made less tentative, and it can be given a more official status. I'd completely forgotten that I started Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? back in the day - it's a great pity the draft there wasn't adopted. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod Hi, thanks for answering here! Would you like to give your feedback over at User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process#Request for feedback? I've been updating and refining the essay with lots of examples, discussions, proposals and decisions, including 4 cases in which people have actually been sanctioned for disruptive editing due to emptying categories. Even if there is no clear formal rule on what ECOOPing is, this should provide more than enough background to better deal with future cases, which most certainly do not necessarily need to go unpunished, as they have sometimes already been punished in the past. Most people just haven't been aware of it. I've had to dig through 20 years of archives, but, that's what I do best as a historian. Anyway, feel free to share feedback on the talk page! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, Qwerfjkl, TSventon, and Johnbod: I'm opening a closely related discussion infra, namely, Speedy nomination of just emptied categories. JoergenB (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of ((CfD top)) from  bff9fc  to  caf0f2  (or at least something similar). SWinxy asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.

 bff9fc  is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:

Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I come from WP:TPER.) The color has also struck me as quite gaudy, though this change is quite minor. There was a bold attempt at a lighter shade in 2007, as can be seen at /Log/2007 September 12. This won't update any previous closes, since the template is subst'ed. SilverLocust 💬 22:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the idea, per se, but if we're going to change it, I would prefer that we change it to a named web colour and not to a numeric code. - jc37 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color as well. - jc37 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're on web colours, which I agree would make sense;  Lavender  ,  LightCyan  and  Azure  are probably the best options in keeping with a pale-blue theme. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're only looking at those choices, I think the Azure would be too pale. It needs to show it's closed. And I think the Lavendar seems more violet than blue.

Besides  LightCyan  I suppose there's also  PaleTurquoise ,  PowderBlue ,  LightBlue ,  SkyBlue . The PaleTurquoise seems closest to your second closed example above. Though I'm not sure the small boxes show us clarity/contrast well enough. - jc37 00:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the small boxes. Of your suggestions above; LightBlue and SkyBlue seem too dark. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc37 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like Lavender – it is slightly purple, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug (though I am certainly biased as it is my second favorite color, after pink.  HotPink , anyone?). Azure and LightCyan are a close seconds. All of the choices above are W3C AAA-compliant for black text (including HotPink!). HouseBlaster^talk 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a draft for a tutorial on closing CfDs. It is by no means finished, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder whether this entire category tree shouldn't be nuked. There generally won't be any notable "media" in a "franchise" that aren't "mass", and this category tree and its propagation down to things like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) mass media with subcats like Category:Blade Runner (franchise) films makes it very difficult to find the works that are completely central to the franchise to begin with. Plus all this extraneous injection of "(franchise)". It just led to a categorization editwar at Blade Runner, and there are probably other instances, but just making the categories a confusing and frustrating waste of time for readers is the main issue.

I'm opening this for some general discussion first before launching a large-scale CfD, in case there's some really, really compelling reason for this mess that I somehow can't see yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C2F, for an eponymous category with no content but the eponym itself, is listed here as a speedy deletion criterion — but it is not available as a deletion rationale in the drop-down menu if I actually try to delete a category on those grounds, meaning that I have to manually come to the list of speedy deletion criteria to refresh my memory of what its section code even is before I can delete a category on those grounds. Is there any way to get it added to the drop-downs? Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the M be capitalized in Category:Foreign Ministers of Germany‎ or Category:Foreign ministers of Gabon. The categories are very inconsistent. Note, this also affects the equivalent categories for Defense Minister/minister. Naraht (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht, the main article, Minister for Foreign Affairs (Germany), seems to mostly use Foreign Ministers. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl I'm just using Germany and Gabon as examples. See the lack of consistency in Category:Foreign_ministers_by_country.Naraht (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht, well, there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in mainspace as well as cat4egory space, but Ministry of foreign affairs seems to use foreign ministers. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht

Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns ... They are capitalized only in the following cases:

• When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
• When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural (my, DB1729's, emphasis), is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:

Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan.

The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it.

Note that for "president of the United States" or "prime minister of the United Kingdom", the name of the country remains capitalized even when the title is not, as it is always a proper noun. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs). — MOS:JOBTITLE

--DB1729^talk 15:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this should not be capitalized per our existing rules. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement. So it is agreed that Category:Foreign Ministers of Germany‎ should be moved to Category:Foreign ministers of Germany and that it is correct for Gabon, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding. DB1729^talk 22:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht, I can help wou with a mass nomination if you want. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl Sure. Let's do Foreign Minster -> Foreign minister first. There are 64 hits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%2FForeign+Ministers+of%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns14=1 and as far as I can tell, all would need to be changed. Note, I'm still a little confused on what happens with "Ministers of Foreign Affairs of XXX". I *guess* the F&A get lowercased?Naraht (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht, no problem. Would you mind writing out the rationale here, then I'll go ahead and create the nomination, tag all the category pages, notify the page creators etc? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl could you please do so on Germany and I will duplicate that for the other 63 using Autowikibrowser.Naraht (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a script for this. I've created the nomination. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl Thank you. I thought that I'd be doing the tag & notify. And after this is done (presumably in a week?), I'll come back and propose similar moves for other ministerial jobs. I'd rather not propose too many prior to possible discussion on the pages.Naraht (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

All Categories starting with "Foreign Minister of" should be changed to "Foreign minister of" based on MOS:JOBTITLE since not about a single person as a Job Title.Naraht (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I !vote "oppose" to a Speedy, should I move that item into the "Opposed requests" section? Or will this be done according to a review / timed cleanup process? Thanks for the information. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, we keep it there for some time and then, unless the issue has been resolved, somebody would move it down. Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before listing merges at WP:CFDW, please check whether parent categories or other page contents need to be merged. In this set (which happened to be from the Speedy page), some additional parents and portals needed to be merged. Unusually, for that set, there was a category header template, and the missing page content could be incorporated into that. Normally, any missing parents or other content have to be added manually. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was closed 10 days ago but the category is yet to be moved. Is their something I am supposed to do to move it? I thought a bot performed to move automatically. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Some months ago, I had a category which I created several years ago nominated for a WP:C1 speedy deletion. I was lucky enough to notice this in time. It took me a couple of hours to find out what had happen. (It was in high probability due to a pure editing mistake; someone had overwritten the category while adding another (unrelated) one to the only member article.) I fixed this, but also asked for tools for finding newly emptied categories, and their contents. I got good answers (@Explicit and Liz, thanks again). Liz, who tipped me about the fairly recent tool User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer (CCV), which actually works even better than she claimed. (@Nardog: Have you improved your code recently?) She also wrote

I'll just add that because going to CFD can be a laborious prospect (discussions are sometimes open for weeks or even months before they are closed), it's not uncommon for editors, even those who work extensively with categories, to just empty out categories so they will be tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion even though this process is discouraged. It's just much faster so it is tempting for many editors to just do this themselves rather than having a deletion or rename discussion at CFD. I hope this helps with any questions you had.

(For further details, se my and Explicit's talk pages.)

Experimental investigation: For the given reasons, last Thursday (2023-11-30), I decided to check precisely how some recently empty (or emptied) categories were treated. I thus checked all categories then listed on the WP:Database reports/Empty categories, which were not yet deleted. As far as I remember, there were less than 10 items; and all of them were tagged for WP:C1 deletion by Liz. However, three of them were recently emptied. All three had existed (and had had content until recently, but probably sparse) for several years, and thus probably might be counted among the "not uncommon but discouraged" cases Liz mentioned (if I understood this comments correctly). I think that in at least two of the three cases a "more correct" procedure would have been to nominate the categories for deletion for explicit reasons, without (or possibly in parallel to) emptying them.

At the same time, I do appreciate the diligent maintenance and edits done by e. g. Liz and Explicit; and I do understand that their workloads may be increased by following such procedures—especially when it would include putting back the recently removed content. I also looked briefly at the discussion example Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?, provided by TSventon. However, in that case, much of the opposition to "stricter procedures" seemed to be related to a wish to be able to deal quickly with recently added (and according to an experienced user improper) categories. I think that this is a valid point (altough I also think that trying not to bite newbies unduly sometimes could motivate a slightly slower provcedure). However, none of the three Thursday examples were of this kind; the categories were old and had adequate content.

The examples: For reference I give the three examples, and some suggestions for alternative procedures.

• Category:Mayors of Breslau: Created and populated 2019 by @HerkusMonte; content (2 articles) moved to Category:Mayors of Wrocław by @Artemis Andromeda; tagged for deletion (by Liz) within two hours. In this case, the question is to what extent a city with different names in several languages (in this case, German and Polnish) should be treated under the same or different names depending on which country had the "ownership" at different times. Now, Breslau redirects to Wroclaw; and even when the article category was created, HerkusMonte put it in the Category:Politicians from Wrocław. Factually, I agree with Artemis Andromeda's move; but I think that it would have been more proper to ask for a speedy merge per WP:C2D. (As I understand it, this would involve making an item with no further motivation at Categories for discussion#Current requests Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Current requests, informing the category creator, and then waiting a week before moving the content and perhaps deleting the category, provided no one does oppose the category merge. After the completion, tough, possibly, one should put a "category redirect" box on the category, rather than deleting. Reason: I checked dewiki, and there I found quite a bunch of articles about various mayors of Breslau/Wrocław from the time of German rule. A "category redirect" should lessen the risk that the category is recreated, when someone translates some of these articles to enwiki. As a minimum, if the category is deleted, the motivation for the deletion should not be left blank or (IMHO not quite truthfully) just refer to WP:C1, but instead state e. g. "Merged into Category:Mayors of Wrocław".
• Category:Courts and tribunals disestablished in 1928: Created and populated 2020 by @BrownHairedGirl, with a categorisation of the redirect United States District Court for the District of Indiana. All four categories for this redir were removed by Wow; within two hours, the category which thereby was emptied was tagged for deletion.
  In this case, I do not know why Wow removed the categories (without explanation). @Wow: Was there a specific reason for your edit here; or do you in general dislike categorisation of redirects? (In the latter case, I disagree. There are reasons for the existence of the specific tagging of redir categorisation; and I think that this was one of the examples for which this option is intended. IMO, it would be ridiculous to place a target list in all the relevant categories for its members; but still such categories may be used as search tools, and therefore in some natural manner should provide a way to find that content. Categorisation of redirects often is a good way to achieve this.)
  Since I see that Liz undid some similar edits of Wow's (for California or Florida in lieu of Indiana) the other day; I did the same here (and consequently also removed your db-catempty, Liz). There are a bunch of these redirs to the same target; preferrably, they should be treated similarly, either removing all these categorisations of redirs, or adding such categories for the ones missing them.
• Category:Yorkton Film Festival: Factually, this is the most interesting example. Superficially, it seems to be created and populated 2020 by @Bearcat, and have its two member articles deleted by Liz on November 25, who waited 5 days before tagging it for deletion. (Actually, Bearcat changed the preexisting Category:Yorkton to the Category:Yorkton Film Festival, but Liz just deleted the latter without restoring the former.) However, this was not the most interesting content, and not the most dramatic deletions. It took a while to deduce the history, which also involves another emptying-and-deletion category.
  As far as I succeeded to figure it out, Yorkton is a not very large Canadian town, which has housed a regularly recurring film festival since 1950. The festival has changed its content (e. g., documentary or short films) and scope (international or national) several times; but it never was just a local event. Several prices have been given in various categories; some determined by public votes at the event, some by a local festival committe. There some by the National Film Board of Canada, which actually has been involved in the festivals in one or another way from the very beginning. I do not get the impression that these festivals have the same general interest as some other (more mainstream?) Canadian film festivals, though.
  In 2020, LorriBrown created (mostly) or expanded (in a few cases) some fifteen pages about the various prices distributed at the festival; see the list at the bottom of his user page. These were collected in Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards, a category that I guess was created by Bearcat in 2020; (is that a good guess?); I cannot know, since it was deleated, and I'm not an administrator (in this project). Likewise, the tool CCV seems not to work for non-existing categories. The new articles in general contained a general introduction, describing the origin and scope of the price, and the institution or group of people behind it, et cetera; followed by a list of the winners. Two examples: Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Comedy (one of the 'ordinary' categories) and Kathleen Shannon Award (a National Film Board price).
  However, in the beginning of November, User:162 etc. tagged the whole buch of articles for "merging" into Yorkton Film Festival, directing the discussion to Talk:Yorkton Film Festival#Merging everything in Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards. The only comment came from User:Zenomonoz (after two weeks), who concurred, referring to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and advised 162 etc. to proceed directly. (Zenomonoz talks about one article rather than fifteen; but most of the articles indeed are fairly similar.) I'm not sure this was the best advise; and I do not like the way it was followed.
  Actually, User:162 etc. replaced all the articles by (raw, untemplated, uncategorised) redirs, rather than performing any merge. Nothing was modified in the target article. (The user has done some similar "deletion-merges" earlier. However, I do not in any way want to give a false impression that this would be due to anything else that a wish to improve Wikipedia. I've followed some of the activities of 162 etc., and find the user contributing in a rather positive manner; often with good results, but also at least once missing some details. E. g., it would be incorrect to claim that there was much content in the deleted-directed articles not already present in the redir targets, except for the lists of winners; and things like creating circular links and deleting appropriate categories are easy to miss, I think. At least, I make such mistakes myself, now and then.) As an effect, the section Yorkton Film Festival#Golden Sheaf Award categories now gives a false impression; it consists of two lists of awards, without any comments (or e. g. start years), but the reader "sees" that 15 of the titles have links to separate articles, where more information could be gained. In reality, since November 22, all these links are circular ones, to the Yorkton Film Festival itself (and not even to a relevant subsection).
  I do not know if 162 etc. also removed the awards category from Category:Yorkton Film Festival the same day. This has some importance for calculating how long the latter category has ben empty. Was it from the day Liz removed the last two articles, or from the day she deleted the (former or actual?) subcategory (November 29)? Anyhow, after the massive content deletion was effected, the user Bearcat (who seems not to have been informed, probably since this technically was just a "merge" proposal) indeed has reacted; see Talk:Yorkton Film Festival#.
  IMHO, there are some major questions of importance for the film project (and, of course, others interested enough), related to the concept "major (film) awards"; actually, Bearcat started (and, so far, ended) a discussion of this last spring at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Notability on the basis of awards. I suspect that the Yorkton festival is an appropriate test case. (No one has suggested that it should not satisfy WP:GNG—and I'm convinced it does. Does it follow that its rewards should be treated as "major", in the sense that the award winners should be listed?)
  Therefore, @Liz, I'd like to ask you if you have some principal reason for removing these categories; and, if not, whether you would restore Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards, and let me restore the pre-redir versions of its member articles. We then could ask for input from the 'film guys'. The end result could be a new list deletion en masse, or retaining the restored (pretty well-sourced) versions, or something in between (e. g., restoring the full Kathleen Shannon Award and Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Best of Festival awards, but make one article with short sections for the others, but in these presenting winner names only to the extent there are specific reasons). This general awards article could gain quite a bit by skipping parallel text, I think.
  However, such a discussion would not concern categories more than peripherically. When it is (reasonably) finished (if this is possible in the WP:-), then there might be some minor consequences for categories; not the other way around. JoergenB (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that redirects could be categorized since I usually don't see redirects with categories. I'll try to remember this now. Wow (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Well, if you happen to see some category member in a (blue but) slanted font, then it's probably a redir. If you click it, you'll get to its target. Best, JoergenB (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(One example is that category you accidentally emptied, Category:Courts and tribunals disestablished in 1928.) JoergenB (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Courts and tribunals example has turned out to be due to a misunderstanding, and thus is resolved. I've had no responses for the two other examples; and therefore now have modified the categories and category contents as I found most reasonable; vide supra. (The main Yorkton discussion definitely should be made elsewhere, though.) JoergenB (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Bearcat: I notice that Liz yesterday notified Bearcat about more than twenty empty categories, although their names and super-category clearly indicated that they were created as project assesment class collections, which we should not tag for deletion just because they happen to be empty. I looked at that supercategory, Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention, and found that Bearcat created a much larger amount of them (hundreds?), around Oktober 4. Liz, you only tagged those that accidently are empty right now. Beatcat, you consistently avoided the themplates which seemed to be employed by all other creaters of such pages, as Template:Category class and Template:Category importance (not to mention the TOC-tools). I do not think that any of these should be tagged for deletion (and probably those Liz already deleted should be restored); but I also suspect that Bearcat should repair all of them (tagged or not; which probably will take hours, if you have no bot help). Liz, could you explain to us ordinary mortals how these categories should have been written? JoergenB (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category Category:Films about fraternities and sororities. If a film only contains mentions of a sorority (like, I believe Insecticidal may), or only contains mentions of a fraternity like Batch '81, should those have to be split out into separate categories? It seems messy...Naraht (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Category:Sororities is a subcategory of Category:Fraternities and sororities, which in its turn is a subcategory of Category:Fraternities. This doesn't seem very logical; more as an effect of terms with floating meanings. (Are "sororities" examples of "fraternities" in the broad sense "student organisations"; or are "sororities" and "fraternities" completely disjoint items, as examples of strictly sex-segregated organisations?) JoergenB (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category was speedy moved to Category:Non-free images of film posters, however, about 4K files have the category added by a template. Would it be possible to recruit bot to replace in every file ((non-free poster|image has rationale=yes|Fair use images of film posters)) with ((non-free poster|image has rationale=yes|Non-free images of film posters))? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this category replacement is needed: ((non-free poster|image has rationale=yes|Fair use images of television program posters)) with ((non-free poster|image has rationale=yes|Non-free images of television program posters)) Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the TV category using WP:JWB, but for the film cat let's put a switch in the template. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, we are doing this the hard way! Since 2021, ((Non-free poster)) will resolve redirects. Just leave a redirect permanently at the old name, and wait for the members to update themselves (or run null edits on them all). – Fayenatic London 10:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Category:Fair use images of movie posters was already redirected to Category:Fair use images of film posters. I updated that redirect, and now the job's done. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholics has Category:Former Roman Catholics as a sub-category, which seems to be a contradiction in terms. You can't be both a Roman Catholic and a former Roman Catholic, at the same time. Do I just remove the sub-cat from the main category; or does a discussion need to take place? And if so, what type of discussion? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category is fine as it is and covers current and former Roman Catholics. Occupational categories such as Category:Educators similarly include current and former educators. TSventon (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Category:Association of College Honor Societies which contains Category:Former members of Association of College Honor Societies.Naraht (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could this category not include people like Martin Luther or Henry VIII … who are famous for leaving the Church? Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense to me that they be added.Naraht (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that the category is NONDEFINING for many of those who ARE categorized. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can't be both a Roman Catholic and a former Roman Catholic at the same time, though? Schrodinger's Catholic? Should the sub-category not just be promoted to stand-alone status, problem solved? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are intended to help readers find articles, and reflect characteristics of the subjects at different points in time. Category:Former Roman Catholics as a sub-category of Category:Roman Catholics seems to be the standard arrangement for Category:People by former religion. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woodensuperman and User:Qwerfjkl, the discussion covered two category formats: Fooian-language Netflix original programming and Fooian-language Netflix original films. The latter should have been merged into Category:Netflix original films rather than Category:Netflix original programming. --Paul 012 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012, indeed it should have. Was it not? — Qwerfjkltalk 08:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this bot edit, I think no. --Paul 012 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012, it looks like I listed it incorrectly. The easiest way to resolve this is probably to revert the bot and then get the bot to handle it with the correct targets, which will unfortunately create a bunch of red-linked categories briefly. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012, are these correct?

* [[:Category:Arabic-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Arabic-language films]]
* [[:Category:Dutch-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Dutch-language films]]
* [[:Category:English-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:English-language films]]
* [[:Category:Filipino-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Filipino-language films]]
* [[:Category:French-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:French-language films]]
* [[:Category:Hebrew-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Hebrew-language films]]
* [[:Category:Hindi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Hindi-language films]]
* [[:Category:Indonesian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Indonesian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Italian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Italian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Japanese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Japanese-language films]]
* [[:Category:Korean-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Korean-language films]]
* [[:Category:Malayalam-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Malayalam-language films]]
* [[:Category:Mandarin-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Mandarin-language films]]
* [[:Category:Marathi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Marathi-language films]]
* [[:Category:Norwegian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Norwegian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Polish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Polish-language films]]
* [[:Category:Portuguese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Portuguese-language films]]
* [[:Category:Russian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Russian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Spanish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Spanish-language films]]
* [[:Category:Swedish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Swedish-language films]]
* [[:Category:Tamil-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Tamil-language films]]
* [[:Category:Telugu-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Telugu-language films]]
* [[:Category:Thai-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Thai-language films]]
* [[:Category:Turkish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Turkish-language films]]
* [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original films]] to [[:Category:English-language films]], [[:Category:Amazon Prime Video original films]] and [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original programming]]

* [[:Category:Arabic-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Arabic-language films]]
* [[:Category:Dutch-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Dutch-language films]]
* [[:Category:English-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:English-language films]]
* [[:Category:Filipino-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Filipino-language films]]
* [[:Category:French-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:French-language films]]
* [[:Category:Hebrew-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Hebrew-language films]]
* [[:Category:Hindi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Hindi-language films]]
* [[:Category:Indonesian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Indonesian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Italian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Italian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Japanese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Japanese-language films]]
* [[:Category:Korean-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Korean-language films]]
* [[:Category:Malayalam-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Malayalam-language films]]
* [[:Category:Mandarin-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Mandarin-language films]]
* [[:Category:Marathi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Marathi-language films]]
* [[:Category:Norwegian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Norwegian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Polish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Polish-language films]]
* [[:Category:Portuguese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Portuguese-language films]]
* [[:Category:Russian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Russian-language films]]
* [[:Category:Spanish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Spanish-language films]]
* [[:Category:Swedish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Swedish-language films]]
* [[:Category:Tamil-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Tamil-language films]]
* [[:Category:Telugu-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Telugu-language films]]
* [[:Category:Thai-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Thai-language films]]
* [[:Category:Turkish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Turkish-language films]]
* [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original films]] to [[:Category:English-language films]] and [[:Category:Amazon Prime Video original films]]

Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Yes, I believe these are now correct. (Though I'm not sure what to do with Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original programming. Perhaps another CfD is needed, as it was missed in the original nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot to follow-up on this, but it appears 2pou has manually done the repairs. Thanks and sorry for that. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At some point an editor or editors tried (I've since reverted) adding Wales, England & Scotland to Category:Countries in Europe. In order to avoid this happening again? We should have the category renamed (i.e. moved) Category:Sovereign states in Europe. Indeed we should do this for 'all' Categories of countries. Change'em from 'countries' to 'sovereign states'. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would an administrator please open an RM at "Category:Countries in Europe", with the proposal to 'move' to "Category:Sovereign states in Europe"? Same for "Category:Countries in North America", etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a category was previously considered and deleted, can it be reconsidered and undeleted? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If it's been a long time (several years) since the CfD and the reasoning from the CfD clearly no longer holds, a category can usually be re-created without issue. But if it's more recent, or if the situation isn't clear, the safest route I think would be to open a WP:deletion review to discuss whether the previous consensus still holds. In any case, the category would have to be manually re-populated. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012 what should if the deletion review does not work in favor of undeleting? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases such an outcome probably indicates that consensus is against re-creating such a category, and that should be respected. There may be exceptions, such as a case being misunderstood, but the way forward will depend on the exact circumstances. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in mobile right now and can’t list this category: Category:XMAG (magazine), which is pointless and has article content in it, and only one page. BhamBoi (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot just performed the merger of Category:Missing people found deceased to Category:Formerly missing people, following a CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart, which also saw input from Suncheon Boy, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison and Fayenatic london. However, the category should have been deleted, not merged, as consensus at the previous discussion was to delete the category as non-defining. Merging resulted in the pollution of the target category, which I understand was supposed to be about people who went missing but were later found alive. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was done because of speedy, not because of DGH's nomination. Unfortunately, the nomination was not placed in the correct place Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28. I don't know what the procedure is for cleaning up a category after a merge. Mason (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. "A CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart". Here's the version of the CFDS page before the discussion was removed for processing, for your convenience. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. I know that it was nominated for speedy, the same nom you're linking to. However, my point was that DGH's full nomination was posted before, but was not done correctly. Then I linked to the version of the nomination I was talking about: " Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28". Mason (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably the speedy nomination was implemented by User:Ymblanter, pinging them just to sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I indeed processed the speedy yesterday. I overlooked the existence of the other nomination )or may be the template was not there). Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The category had been populated by moving people from the parent, so it seemed correct to revert to status quo ante by merging. If there is consensus to exclude people who did not survive, Category:Formerly missing people should state this, with documentation on its talk page. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was easy to overlook. I only saw the nom because I was looking at someone's edit history. The nomination placed on a typo "Janruary 28", and I suspect that the template wasn't there. I also agree with FL, that the merge as implemented seemed to restore the status quo. Furthermore, I would argue that you can be notably missing and eventually turn up deceased. (Many of the examples in the discussion focused on how some people who were murdered might be reported as missing. But that's not really the same as being notable for being missing) Mason (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's clearly a big difference between people who went missing then turned up alive and those who were found dead. They were presumably separately categorised at the time of the 2020 CfD, but following the deletion of Category:Formerly missing people found dead, editors then lumped them together in Category:Formerly missing people. This seems to go against the intent of that CfD and is quite clearly undesirable if you ask me; I can see why Minerva97 (whom I forgot to ping earlier) re-created and populated it as Category:Missing people found deceased, even if she was unaware of the previous discussion.

Anyway, however we got here, the more relevant question is how to move forward. We could start a new CfD to either (A) re-split Category:Formerly missing people into missing-then-alive and missing-then-dead people (overturning the previous CfD result), or (B) rename it to more clearly reflect what I assume is the original intended scope and purge the missing-then-dead to enforce the previous CfD outcome. However, maybe this discussion alone is enough indication that the situation and consensus has changed in the intervening three years, so "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", negating G4. In that case (C) the bot actions can simply be reverted, restoring Minerva97's split. That would avoid the need to manually purge or re-split the category again, which would be needed should we go the new CfD route. Or we could also (D) do nothing.

Pinging the still-active previous CfD participants Namiba, RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, and DexDor, and closer MER-C. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a unanimous decision to merge I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I could see the justification for a divide between the living and the dead, I don't see any need to make it at the moment:

• I think less than 5 percent of all missing persons cases we have articles about that have been resolved have been resolved with the MP turning up alive. That might justify such a category, but ... not right now, I think. There are more articles we could write about such cases, but for now we haven't written them.
• I also think it would be pretty clear by implication that a missing person was found dead if among the other categories are "People murdered in ..." "Deaths by ..." or Category:Unsolved deaths. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just read through this and there are several completely reasonable options here but I favor B. It appears to me that the naming of Category:Formerly missing people lends itself to including people found dead (whether through an automated merge or manually per article). I would leave this merge in place and leave it up to anyone who felt strongly to open a new CFD to rename the category to something like Category:Formerly missing people found alive and then we can purge if that passes. (This is a just suggestion though and I favor any path forward that has anything close to a consensus.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My slight inclination is D (but B is fine if sometone is so motivated), as that requires less action, effectively leaving the merge in place, and I like your suggestion of being open to missing people found alive. (There is a category that captures something close that, effectively temporarily missing people). I don't feel strongly about it.) Mason (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Administrator Daniel Case has stated The CFD is closed and I think that the unanimous decision should remain, since he is an administrator I think we should do what he says. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring to an admin's opinion because they are an admin, isn't a compelling reason. (Sorry, @Daniel Case). I happen to agree with them. Hence lean D. But, their status as an admin wasn't part of my reasoning. Mason (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole conversation is frustratingly collegial; doesn't anyone feel adamant? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to propose an actual rename to facilitate B. It seems that everyone is indifferent (either directly or indirectly) to make another change, except you. So, I think that we should just do D, which is nothing.Mason (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support (B). --Paul_012 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggested name? Mason (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we went by the name of the category that started this discussion, Category:Missing people found alive would be the logical counterpart, but I'm not sure there aren't better alternatives. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This CSD request is incorrect and should never have been approved; the main article is at VfL Bochum and so all categories should be at Category:VfL Bochum XXX.

Please can the moves be reverted and the old categories restored on articles? GiantSnowman 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will submit the request for a reverse speedy move back for the categories. Geregen2 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the British, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cats, which have now all been moved from Queen's Counsel to King's Counsel, shouldn't the same be done for this category?

Thanks, --NSH001 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001, WP:CFDS? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, already done. That was just me being a lazy bastard (not having used the process for some time) and hoping someone would do it for me. Anyway, I've done it now. --NSH001 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:2023 in horse racing is included into Category:2023 in equestrian which has been deleted and moved to Category:2023 in equestrian sports. (The same problem is for every year). I tried to find which template which sets the category but I can not see where it is. Could someone help me please? It probably requires just one edit for every year in some template. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories.

What do you think about upmerging all team categories in Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.

Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are some categories with over 10 entries, and these are probably legit, and there are others with two or three, these can be upmerged. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter, the size isn't what I meant. I think these are trivial because most of these are former major league players so short minor league coaching stints - since minor leagues coaches are shifted around a lot in the farm system of a major league team - aren't defining to their career. Does that make sense? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still needs obviously to go through CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter, of course. I put two categories up before because the teams were defunct and had one article in each - and hence not likely to grow - so I'm just waiting for that to close. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.

Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @Smasongarrison, @HouseBlaster, @Qwerfjkl. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog at WT:CFDW; it will be sorted eventually. WP:NODEADLINE is applicable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I was concerned that it may have been a bot issue (Mason suggested it might be) or something else as, usually, these go through within a week or some and there are a lot that have been stalled for over a month (and some even earlier). Hence why I brought it up. But there isn't any issue then I understand. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed lack of admins who add closed nominations to the page for bot. It does not help much that I am leaving for holidays today, but we will eventually sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Enjoy your holiday! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this to me User:Pppery; I wasn't aware that there was a backlog. Apologies for pressing the issue! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]