Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

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

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


 * Propose deleting Category:Categories catgeories
 * Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is a good category. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I do not like it. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination; {good reason}. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Response Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.

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


 * Propose deleting Category:Categories catgeories
 * Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is a good category. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I do not like it. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination; {good reason}. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Response Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was:


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


 * (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)

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)
 * And while we're at it, following Manual_of_Style/Accessibility as well. - jc37 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're on web colours, which I agree would make sense;,   and  are probably the best options in keeping with a pale-blue theme. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 I suppose there's also, , , . 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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., anyone?). Azure and LightCyan are a close seconds. All of the choices above are W3C AAA-compliant for black text (including HotPink!) . HouseBlastertalk 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this: 
 * 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.


 * Propose deleting Category:Categories catgeories
 * Nominator's rationale: Because it needs to be deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is a good category. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I do not like it. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination; {good reason}. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Response Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.

Courtesy pings to some CfD regulars as well as participants in the above discussion: House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the current colour. The first proposal caf0f2 strikes me as a bit grubby, less pleasing on the eye. LightCyan is cleaner than that, on all of my devices, and I could live with it. However, it has this disadvantage: because dark mode has no effect on browser pages (or project/category pages in the Wikipedia app), I occasionally invert the colours on my tablet (triple-click on iPads), and in that presentation LightCyan, Azure and Lavender are almost indistinguishable from white, whereas the current bff9fc and caf0f2 are clearly distinct. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So would PaleTurquoise be closer to what you would be looking for? - jc37 01:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, PaleTurquoise is dark enough that it shows up (as lighter) on an inverted-colour iPad. But in normal viewing, I find that blue links stand out less clearly against it than they the do against the current bff9fc. I would therefore prefer to stay put. Of course, if there's a majority in favour of change, I'll live with it; it's not a big deal to me. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it a named colour rather than merely a value. But otherwise, as long as it meets Manual of Style/Accessibility (and your concerns), than I'm pretty much fine any-which-way. - jc37 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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


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

Please list a cat for deletion
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)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Missing people found deceased
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)


 * The merge was done because of speedy, not because of DGH's nomination. Unfortunately, the nomination was not placed in the correct place 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: " Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28". Mason (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably the speedy nomination was implemented by User:Ymblanter, pinging them just to sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  L ondon 08:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)
 * I'd also support (B). --Paul_012 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggested name? Mason (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

VfL Bochum
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.

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


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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes
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)

Category:Irish Queen's Counsel
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)
 * NSH001, WP:CFDS? — Qwerfjkl  talk  20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Category:2023 in horse racing
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)
 * Fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor league coaches by team
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)


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

Cfds not going through
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)
 * There is a backlog at WT:CFDW; it will be sorted eventually. WP:NODEADLINE is applicable. Best, House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Understood. Enjoy your holiday! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Malformed nomination at Category:Chemical Biology
Category:Chemical Biology has been tagged for CfD, but has no corresponding discussion ("this category's entry"). This seems to be a straight-forward duplicate of Category:Chemical biology, but I'm not familiar with CfD or categories in general. Should this be renominated or can this be merged/redirected with no discussion as uncontroversial? &#8213; Synpath 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * From and Special:Contributions/ScienceChemBio, it looks like User:ScienceChemBio hasn't followed the instructions for the nomination to the end. A possible solution could be to replace content of page Category:Chemical Biology with . —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I have done this after skimming over some of the speedy merge criteria for CfD. It seems to qualify for WP:C2A and WP:C2D, but bots will clean up it up anyways per the info at the category redirect template. No fuss, thanks again. &#8213; Synpath 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw no reason to keep the redirect, so I have deleted it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, my sensibilities probably skew too much to RfD where the alternate captilization could be considered helpful as 'chemical biology' appears often enough as a proper noun in university course titles and textbooks. &#8213; Synpath 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

History of instruction changes of Categories for discussion/Speedy
The top half of the page Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.

The opposite approach is used on WP:RFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:BN, all of which have subpages for their "static", almost "unchanging" parts. E.g. Administrators' noticeboard/Header, Redirects for discussion/Header. In case of RFD, it can be very useful to see the history of the changes to the instructions/procedure separately from changes to the page Redirects for discussion.

Aside from taking every text snippet to wikiblame, are there any other ways of looking at how instructions and procedure of WP:CFD/S changed over time? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The criteria used to be at WP:CFSD rather than WP:CFDS until 2016. Since then, you can search the archives of this talk page for "speedy criteria" if that's what interests you, as changes are generally proposed here before implementation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The content removed from WP:CFSD in Special:Diff/749906670 was added to WP:CFDS in Special:Diff/749906249. Prior to that it was a section transclusion. Since then quite a lot changed: Special:Diff/749906249/1221394590. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass-renaming (probably) needed
I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely...Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :) DonIago (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've opened the CfD on this. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Better integration between closing RMs and this page
There really needs to be better integration between closing RMs and notifying this page (or a new central cleanup page) of the close. I stumbled across Talk:Alborz province, which seems that had no follow up work done to articles, sub-articles and categories. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reopenings
Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28).

The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.

In theory, Closing discussions (a section under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).

Moreover, I didn't know that all editors could challenge a closure and request a reopening at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and that this was regular practice. (There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)
 * Compare, for example, the standard statement after the closure of every CfD: ... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as an appropriate discussion page.
 * Besides, another regular practice (that I have followed as well) is going to the closing admin's personal talk page to request a reopening if I think there has been a procedural mistake.
 * Finally, afaik, deletion review is not used very often for categories, nor are category talk pages. Often, people may take a category with a issue to CFD, without necessarily knowing a solution yet - just to draw attention to the issue for CFD regulars to read; because they know it's unlikely that cat talk pages are on watchlists of many people.
 * So, this standard message suggesting venues for "subsequent comments" (including requesting reopenings) seems to differ very much from actual practice, and isn't very helpful.

So:
 * Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?


 * Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.

Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Marcocapelle, perhaps I could ask for your opinion as a start? NLeeuw (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not have an issue with stipulation #3. The only thing that we should clearly avoid is that it leads to forumshopping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How could stipulation #3 lead to forumshopping, then? NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.
 * Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. NLeeuw (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Suburbs of Kalgoorlie-Boulder
The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)