Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

WikiProject Categories
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

XFD backlog
  Feb Mar Apr May TOTAL
CfD 0 0 0 83 83
TfD 0 0 0 1 1
MfD 0 0 0 6 6
FfD 0 1 11 67 79
AfD 0 0 0 28 28

What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?[edit]

This nuanced RfC concerns the question of where to discuss rcat templates. Based on the discussion below, the only formal close that's available to me is no consensus; but that doesn't mean we haven't reached any decisions. The discussion below contains a lot of excellent reasoning, and it makes a good platform for future progress.

An unstated assumption that underlies the RfC question is that there should be one, single venue for discussing rcat templates. During the discussion, editors challenge this assumption, and it's worth noting that this very discussion was transcluded to several different pages. And this, of course, gives us a potential solution: the options at the RfC are not mutually exclusive. It seems to me that by the magic of transclusion, rcat template discussions can be listed in or linked from several places at once. Although my close is "no consensus", I commend this outcome to you all.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should be the venue for discussing rcat (WP:Redirect categorization) templates/categories?

This question is prompted by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Template:R from meme where this question was raised. I personally think it should be at RfD since the audience at RfD will likely be more experienced with redirect categories making them better at making decisions about them then the audiences at TfD or CfD. While this is quite different from RfDs regular content I still believe that they are the most suitable for handling these template with RfDers generally having experience using them. Both TfD and CfD have a reasonable claim since they are templates and they are used for categorizing pages. I will transclude this section at WT:RFD, WT:TFD and WT:CFD so all interested parties can participate. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears, Good discussion. In theory, I'd say TfD because of the namespace. However, in practice, since rcats are so widely used, I'm wondering if we shouldn't be discussing these in a more prominent place? CfD proposed by MJL seems reasonable, but CfD, too, sees even less participation than TfD in most cases. RfD is reasonable, though not necessarily dealing with redirects so the editors/admins there may be less familiar with the template nuances. What about MfD (like userboxes), or, possibly, at one of the Village Pumps? (Twinkle would need to be updated in any case.) Doug Mehus T·C 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll be honest and say that I would also prefer to have those conversations here. RFD regulars are the ones who have the most familiarity with them, but I have a hard time squaring my preference with the mandate of CFD to discuss all categories. The last place, imo, that should be the venue for RCATs would be TFD since they're just a unique type of categories and TFD regulars would be the less familiar with their usage than RFD regulars. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
MJL, Yeah, similar thoughts as well. RfD makes the most sense to me, too, but its regulars may be less familiar with the intricacies of the rcats and categorization. What about MfD? Doug Mehus T·C 22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: No, definitely not MFD; they're mandate doesn't come close to RCATs. –MJLTalk 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
MJL, Okay, fair enough. No clear answer for me then. It's been RfD and CfD; neither of which are ideal (for different reasons). Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • CFD -- they're a type of category. The template is simply a vehicle for applying the category, similar to stub templates which are discussed at CfD. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • CfD - MJL, who maintains the Archer script, does seem to favour CfD because those editors/administrators are more familiar with the subtleties. RfD would notionally make sense as well, so I wouldn't be opposed to that, and it does generate (somewhat) higher participation than CfD. No real clear, runaway "winner" for which venue is best, but on balance, I concur with the sentiments expressed by MJL and Tavix to firm up my support, for the reasons expressed above. Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD These are templates; I see no good reason to add yet another special case. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD or CfD depending on what is discussed. If the issue is with the category itself, then nominate the category and hold the discussion at CfD. If the issue is with the template, then nominate it at TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    Gonnym, There is established precedent, though, to discussing certain types of templates in other venues. For example, userbox templates, regardless if in userspace or template space, are discussed at MfD. In this case, as discussed above, there are wide-ranging implications with rcats, both in terms of how they're categorized, how they're used, and the impacts to scripts like Archer, Capricorn, Twinkle, etc. CfD does seem to have modestly higher participation than TfD, at least on some days, though it really varies. Crucially, though, the active CfD editors are more likely to be keenly aware to the intricacies of the rcats as the two are closely related. Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    I see those as rare (and IMO bad) exceptions to the rule. I also disagree with your participation analysis. I had a category nomination relisted twice with 0 participation. I'm not changing my opinion on venue. --Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to go with CfD, because they're almost entirely about maintenance categorization. That the categories are usually placed via templates is simply incidental; many maint. cats. do not have templates, but they wouldn't suddenly become TfD "jurisdiction" if someone created templates for them. I could see TfD maybe being the right venue when there is no correspondence between a template and a cat., but this is uncommon. Thinking back, we used to have other cases like this, where things that were mostly categories but also with a template or other "feature" were discussed in other venues. E.g., Stub categories/templates used to have their own WP:SFD, but this has been closed, and CfD is now the venue. It would be strangely inconsistent to declare CfD not the venue for the parallel case of Rcats. Pppery's "No good reasons to add yet another special case" actually is a better rationale to use CfD than TfD. WP not being a bureaucracy (and per Gonnym, above), it should be fine to occasionally TfD an rcat template (if it doesn't implicate a corresponding category; e.g. there are various more-specific rcat template variants that still go to the same maint. cat. as the more general one, unless/until we decide to split the cat. to be more specific; and we might need to discuss a template in template terms only, without any effect on a category that did directly correspond). See also WP:RM being the conventual venue for template renames, yet TfD has sometimes been used for template-related rename discussions. Consensus can form anywhere, if there's sufficient clueful editorial input. A further complication is that many rcats are actually template redirects, not templates, yet they all relate to categorization in the end, even if not exactly corresponding categories. So, if there's to be a default, it should be CfD, because a category is always involved one way or another, and moving categories around or deleting them is a more complicated process than doing the same with templates and redirects. This isn't even really about Rcats in particular; any template that exists solely to apply a category is really a CfD matter, being an incidentally templatey means to a categorization end. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Need to think about this but whatever the outcome, it should be cross-advertised so people who don't follow all related discussions will see it. My gut sense prior to thinking about it is to prefer CfD if the change will affect categorization, or TfD if it will not. For example, if there was an effort to merge {{R from move}} and {{R from merge}} so they used parameters, but the net result would not affect categorization, then TfD is the place to discuss it. If there is an effort to split {{R from move}} so that some moved articles wind up in a new category, then CfD would be the place to discuss it. Again, I may need to give this more thought. Either way, cross-announce the discussion so people who follow only TfD or RfD discussions will be aware of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The original discussion should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    Already done; this entire discussion is sectionally transcluded into both WT:CFD and WT:TFD. Also "advertised" at WP:VPPOL. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 23:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't proofread the above comment very well. To correct and summarize: The discussion of changes to a specific RCat template should start wherever it makes sense to start it, CfD, TfD, or RfD. However, if there is any impact on the other two areas, there needs to be cross-advertising as appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD or CfD on a case-by-case basis. Well, I learn something new every day. I assumed such templates were for the benefit of other editors looking at a redirect's history and status, and wasn't aware of the categorization purpose. From my naive perspective, these are page templates first with categorization as a side effect. But as editors above me argue, the venue really depends on the action contemplated. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Anarchy per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CREEP. Either TfD or CfD is an appropriate venue and regardless of where the deletion discussion occurs, as long as interested editors are properly notified "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Leave where to nominate it up to the nominator based upon what they think is the most important factor to discuss. Wug·a·po·des 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • RfD is actually an interesting option. If we must choose a place to have these discussions, I would prefer that forum since the people familiar with rcats are most likely to see it there. Wug·a·po·des 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      Wugapodes, I agree with you here. My first choice would probably be RfD, but secondarily, CfD since the template itself is just the vehicle, as Tavix and SMcCandlish explain, by which the redirect gets categorized. Without the maintenance categories, these rcat templates would serve no purpose. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Beg to differ, Dmehus, rcats have two important functions: 1) to sort redirects to maintenance categories, and 2) to inform editors who come the the redirect page by explaining the reasoning behind the categorization. Reason "2" is why there are text messages on each rcat. The informative explanations and descriptions are especially helpful for editors who are inexperienced and are learning the details about redirect categorization. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD if discussing a particular Rcat template, CfD if discussing the underlying category, and RfD if whichever type of page is being discussed is itself a redirect to another page. In all cases, a note should be left at WT:REDIRECT as changes to any of these types of pages shouldn't be made without input from editors with experience working in the overall redirection pseudo-namespace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • All Rcat templates have a corresponding category (because that's the purpose of the Rcat template), so it isn't possible to separate the two. If one gets deleted, so does the other, and so on. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    What Tavix said...completely. The template is just the conduit by which the rcat categories are applied, since it involves adding text below the redirect destination. We could, in theory, categorize redirects without the template, but then how would we easily apply the category descriptions below the destination of each redirect? We'd still need a template from somewhere to do this efficiently; copying and pasting doesn't strike me as efficient. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ...TfD. Is anyone else in this discussion besides me aware of the existence of {{Catfd}} and {{Catfd2}}? See WP:TFDHOWTO for instructions in regards bundling related categories with TfD discussions. (Apparently, this method has been in place since 2006 or so.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, although they weren't on my mind when I !voted above. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD, per the principle of least astonishment. I think it would be advisable to notify WikiProject Redirects, but I do not think these nominations belong at CfD (can decide what to do with a template-populated category but not whether the template itself should be kept, deleted, redirected, etc.) or RfD (unless the template is a redirect). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say here RfD if the aim is to fine-tune the scope of the templates, because the RfD crowd includes a majority of people who go around tagging the redirects, but TfD/CfD if the proposal is to delete certain templates and categories, by the principle of least astonishment. Deryck C. 00:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    "here" is ambiguous because this dicussion is transcluded on the talk pages of all relevant XfD. I assume you mean RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    True, in theory, but when a section is transcluded as Trialpears has done (very handy, thank you! Now I know how to do that properly!), in practice, it becomes very difficult for an editor to reply on the talk page with the transclusion because they will see no other discussion. So, yeah, I assumed Deryck Chan meant RfD unequivocally. Doug Mehus T·C 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    Corrected. I didn't realise this was section-transcluded to other noticeboards. Deryck C. 22:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hate to say it, but generally amenable to most of the above. My instinct is TfD, just because it'll be the default assumption, but I do agree that the folks at CfD are most likely to care or have an opinion. I actually think RfD is the least-good option; they are related to redirects, but have little in common with them (to borrow a line from Mitch Hedberg, Rcats are to redirects as cooking is to farming). Steel1943 brings up the catfd templates, which I like and would seem to support TfD, but they wouldn't increase awareness unless someone stumbled on the category, would they? ~ Amory (utc) 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD. Late to this discussion and surprised that I had to hear about it by checking Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, rcats are templates, not categories nor redirects. They should be discussed at TfD, nowhere else. As always, the category would follow, i.e., if an rcat is deleted, then its maintenance category is also deleted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh weird, I didn't know that WP:RCAT is for "templating redirects". I always thought it was for Categorizing redirects. My point is that we are categorizing redirects, so its the categories that matter. I find it shocking that someone with so much experience with RCATs would so wrongly declare that they are not categories when they clearly are. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh, friend Tavix! Rcats have been sooo misunderstood, as exemplified by this entire discussion. Rcats serve TWO main purposes, and only one of those is categorization. You're a pretty smart editor, and I would bet ten dollars to a doughnut that if you were to give it just a few moments of thought, you are probably one of the few editors who will then realize what the other main purpose is. Okay, I won't leave you in suspense. The other main purpose is to make visible text appear on the redirect page, text that provides information to whomever comes to the page, information about the categorization of the redirect among other things. Rcats are so much more than sorting tools. If they weren't so much more, then we would just still be hard-catting redirects using the [[]]s instead of the {{}}s. Spread the word, rcats are much more than just redirect sorters, they are sources of important information! especially to those editors who possess little or no experience in redirect categorization. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe it would be a good idea here to mention that I almost always refer to the templates as "rcats", which is actually an acronym of sorts for "redirect categories". That's just me. Back in the old days I called them "rcat templates"; however, with age and decrepitude I shortened it to just "rcats". So I'm guilty... sundowners is setting in. P.S. left by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • CfD to be consistent with how stub templates are handled. Both are wrappers for a category. They definitely don't belong at RfD since they are only associated with redirects. Alternatively, have stub and rcat templates discussed at TfD like all other templates. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • TfD With stub tagging, the main part of the system is the categorisation, as it helps interested editors to find articles to expand. With redirect tagging, I've always thought the main thing are the templates themselves, which convey useful information to the person viewing the redirect. The categorisation, on the other hand, is incidental (save for few exceptions like Category:Printworthy redirects) and exists just because it's easy to add a line to the template causing the categorisation. Maybe someone like SMcCandlish or Tavix can enlighten me how categories like Category:Redirects from other capitalisations or Category:Redirects from ASCII-only titles are useful in the way ones like Category:India road stubs are. SD0001 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Huh? Categories have different purposes so it's disingenuous to compare two completely separate categories that have different purposes and declare one more useful than the other. The categorization is what is actually being done, the templates simply explain what the category is. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is an either–or situation (or, "actually" versus "simply"). The rcat templates serve two functions: they categorize redirects and they provide context/explanation for why the redirect exists in a way that is standardized and can be understood by someone who is only casually familiar with redirects. While I tend to agree that categorization is the more important of these, that does not nullify the other function. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus[edit]

So, what's the verdict? It looks a lot like "no consensus", but is there something from this discussion that we can apply? According to my count, TfD received a plurality of support (5.67) (6.67) (7.83), followed by RfD (4.67) (5.33) and then CfD (3.67) (4.67) (4.83). If one takes the view that the discussion was specifically about where to discuss rcat templates, then TfD enjoys a narrow majority (8–6) (9–7) (10–8). Of course, whether the rcat template is separable from the rcat category was one of the points of disagreement. Some argued it is not and that the template's sole purpose is to categorize, while others (including me) think it is—e.g., a rcat category can be merged or renamed (at CfD) without impacting the existence, name, or display text of the rcat template.

Venue Editor(s) Argument(s)
CfD JJMC89, SMcCandlish, Tavix The template is purely a vehicle for applying the category.
RfD Deryck Chan, Dmehus, MJL, Trialpears, Wugapodes Editors at RfD are more likely to be familiar with redirects, though perhaps not with categorization and templates.
TfD Amorymeltzer, Black Falcon, Paine Ellsworth, Pppery, SD0001, Steel1943 Templates should be discussed at TfD.
CfD or TfD Gonnym, Ivanvector, Mark viking CfD if the category is being discussed, and TfD if the template is being discussed.
CfD, RfD, or TfD Davidwr Discussion should be had at whichever venue makes the most sense, and should be cross-advertised (at WT:REDIRECT or the other venues).

I know this is an imperfect analysis and oversimplifies people's opinions (for example, I belong in the "CfD or TfD" group but responded "TfD" because the original question specifically asked about the rcat template), but I wanted to at least try to reach some sort of an outcome. Thoughts from others on how to move forward would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Counts updated on 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC). — And again on 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

(I participated in the above and a no consensus likely supports my slight preference so take this with a grain of salt but) I agree with no consensus, the discussion particulars makes that clear to me. There's a lot of gray to be considered, even if folks feel one way or another. I think a "no consensus, don't jump down anyone's throat if they do it somewhere other than TfD" would be reasonable. ~ Amory (utc) 10:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be "no consensus" to me also. I !voted for TfD, because I've always thought that when necessary, it is the rcat templates that should be taken to task. Yet when Mac or someone else takes the maintenance category to CfD, I've never been bothered enough to jump down their throats. It's all the same in the end result, either the cat and rcat are kept, or they're deleted. Only problem has been when a deleter forgets one or the other. Happens sometimes, however somebody has always caught it and dealt with it effectively. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


How are/should be stub template merges be handled?[edit]

Sort of related to my above note at #Templates for stub template nominations, but part of the reason I created templates for stub template nominations was to let Twinkle properly handle 'em. SD0001 noted that there's nothing for a proposed merger of a stub template. There wasn't any mention of it in the instructions, so what's the process? They're presumably rare, and I haven't been able to find some examples of these. Would creating {{sfm-t}} and {{sfm-t2}} be worthwhile, or is there a different procedure recommended? ~ Amory (utc) 18:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you intending to merge the templates, or just the categories that they populate? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The former, I guess? I'm just trying to figure out if Twinkle should list delete & rename or delete & rename & merge for stub templates. Right now, the structure for the former exists. ~ Amory (utc) 10:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I've never heard of stub templates being merged, though renaming and deleting are obviously common. Imho it's a moot point, so I wouldn't recommend creating anything for "merge" at the moment. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Related to this, but Twinkle should now properly support nominating stub templates for deletion and renaming at CfD, and autoselect CfD as the venue. ~ Amory (utc) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

questions about CFD process, and re-creating Category:Historic Hotels of America (deleted by CFD in 2018)[edit]

Giving notice by this posting that I am going ahead, contrary to this previous CFD in 2018' which led to consensus decision to delete, to re-create the deleted Category:Historic Hotels of America. I thought maybe running a new CFD would be required or would be good practice, but I don't see relevant advice at wp:CFD. I just see flat statement: "If a category is a red link, then it is already deleted (or was never created in the first place) and does not need to be nominated."

The 2018 CFD came to the wrong decision, not really the closer (User:Good Olfactory)'s fault IMHO, but nonetheless the wrong decision based on facts available already, IMHO. There was unfortunate dismissal of the views/info provided by the one participant most fully informed about the topic, IMHO. It is no longer timely to try to reverse the decision at wp:Deletion Review, though. Anyhow now, after a lot of development, mostly by me, of National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America (soon to be moved/renamed to Historic Hotels of America) and creation or expansion of many linked individual hotel articles, it would be more clear, immediately, to anyone investigating that the topic and category are justified.

There is more explanation at National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America#Previously existing category for Historic Hotels of America (which after a Requested Move is completed, will be at Historic Hotels of America#Previously existing category for Historic Hotels of America). User:Magnolia677 who nominated the category for deletion in 2018, and User:Thierry Caro who participated on the "Keep" side back in that CFD, there note this new initative and support, or at least do not oppose, re-creation now.

If anyone wants to notify all the other 2018 CFD participants (who mostly were on "Delete" side), feel free. Or let me know if I should. Otherwise I don't want to aggravate them, in effect confronting them with my retrospective opinion that they were all wet, and/or stir up renewed opposition. Any new discussion will lead inevitably to approval of re-creation of category, I am sure.

Questions:
1) Is it required or preferred to run a new CFD to reverse the previous CFD's decision, in this case?
2) Is it required or preferred to notify the participants at the previous CFD, about this discussion or about a new CFD?

Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If you believe the category was deleted incorrectly due to procedure or because new information has been identified since deletion, WP:DRV is still the correct location. Deletion of the new category can and will occur under WP:G4 otherwise. OTOH, There was unfortunate dismissal of the views/info provided by the one participant most fully informed about the topic makes it sound like you are under the impression that one participant gets to decide what the consensus is, regardless of the discussion held, which is not how consensus works. You can try the argument at WP:DRV, but such arguments rarely get somewhere. --Izno (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you serious? That for an informed capable editor to create a sensible category, they must go and get approval at wp:DRV??? My impression is that DRV is primarily to provide review of admin-type deletion decisions, i.e. it is a high-level forum for reviewing an administrator's conduct and quality of judgement and communication, and mainly is about finding fault. Its proceedings are semi-secret even, reflecting their personally-directed nature, in that they are automatically collapsed so that they cannot be found in normal searching. At worst, here, I thought maybe someone would show up and say i really must run a new CFD to formally reverse the old one, as a matter of giving notice and allowing low-key low-level approval. I do have an opinion that the original CFD went off the tracks, but that doesn't matter and no one has to agree or disagree. Just looking at the topic, it is simply obvious that a category is justified. I'd rather not have a CFD, and think a DRV would be ridiculous. So, really? And where is this written? --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC) wp:G4 does not mention categories; it is explicitly about articles (ones which are "sufficiently identical copies" to previously deleted ones). For articles, I know that it is fine for me to create a new article where an old article existed, if I am exercising my own judgment that the new article is valid by GNG or whatever, and if I believe it is not extremely similar to a version that was deleted. Editors don't have to ask anyone, and I and other experienced editors do that all the time. Can someone point to policy discussion/decision about this kind of thing? --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

G* criteria are applicable in all namespaces unless otherwise specified. G4 particularly says nothing about articles much less explicitly so: page is used where one might expect article to have been used were it the case that G4 was only about articles (This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.).

That for an informed capable editor to create a sensible category re-create is key here. You may create any category you wish, but almost by definition, the category page will have almost the exact same content as it did prior to deletion by the discussion and so G4 applies to this case. (An article is different in that regard.)

provide review of admin-type deletion decisions Yes?... "Did the admin closing the discussion in question make the right call?" is indeed the question posed at DRV. You dispute that the call was correct. DRV is accordingly the place to dispute the decision. I do not quite understand why you believe a DRV for 7 days would be any different than a CFD for... 7? days. Moreover, CFD's scope is delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types, none of which you are proposing.

(There is a possibility that I do not understand the correct place to go here. It is also possible that you could just WP:BEBOLD and create the category yourself anyway and then let whoever stumbles upon it decide whether that should have been done, but IIRC you have had previous run-ins with The Law in that regard.)

--Izno (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It is fairly common for editors to recreate previously deleted categories, sometimes inadvertently. These can then survive unchallenged or be brought to cfd and discussed again. In the UK we have categories for listed buildings (eg Category:Grade II listed buildings in the City of Westminster), some of which are hotels eg Savoy Hotel. I would expect to be able to create Category:Listed hotels in England (assuming there are enough of them). It is not evident to me why there should be a difference re categorisation between 'listed' in the UK and National Historic Register in the US. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This said, I would be very wary of recreating a deleted category if I had been blocked recently, at great length by BHG no less, explicitly for recreating deleted categories. Oculi (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category merger proposal: Japanese international schools[edit]

Hi! I'd like to merge categories which each have fewer than five articles (including daughter in categories) from multiple country-based categories to continent-based ones.

The continent categories in question:

The following continent-based categories have enough schools to remain viable:

The following continent-based categories have potential to remain viable:

The other relevant country-based categories should be merged into the continent-based categories. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: This is not the place to propose category merges. Please follow the directions at WP:CFD#HOWTO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I added it there because Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion states: " For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here. " here being "Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedily closing a CFD discussion[edit]

We have Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Applying_speedy_criteria_in_full_discussions. Should there not be some advertised route for bringing such noms at cfd to the attention of potential 'speedy' closers? I refer in particular to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Category:Defunct_mass_media which appears to me to be speediable and which is overlapping with further noms I wish to make. Oculi (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)