Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:CDP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Categories for discussion (CfD) is where the renaming, merging or deletion of categories – i.e. pages in the Category namespace – is discussed and action decided. Stub types templates are also discussed here.

Categories are used to organize pages and aid the browsing of related articles. For instructions as to how to use this page, perform cleanup maintenance or request speedy deletions or renamings, see "How to use CfD" below. The policies meant to guide category renaming may be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made.

Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised.

When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it is usually helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.

Current discussions[edit]

Add a new entry

Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

How to use CfD[edit]



To list a category manually for deletion, merging or renaming, follow this process:

Preliminary steps.

Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming.

  1. If it is a red link and has no subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
  3. Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant to other categories (not redundant to stand-alone lists), small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas.
  4. When nominating or commenting on people-related categories, please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy.
  5. When nominating or commenting on Wikipedian categories, please read Wikipedia:User categories and Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories.
  6. In the following special cases:
    • If the category is empty for more than four days, use {{db-catempty}} for a speedy deletion.
    • If the category is only populated by a template and both the category and template are being proposed for deletion, follow the instructions at templates for discussion.
Edit the category.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the category text of every category to be discussed. (The tags belong on the categories' main pages rather than their talk/discussion pages.)

If the category is a candidate for speedy renaming or merging, use:
and follow the instructions at the Speedy page.
If a single category:
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd}}
  • For a merger, {{subst:cfm|Other category}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:cfr|Proposed name}}
  • For splitting, {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2}}
  • For converting the category contents into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name}}
  • For converting the category page text into an article, {{subst:cfc|Proposed name}}
If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page):
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd|Cfd section name}}
  • For a merger, {{subst:cfm|Other category|Cfd section name}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:cfr|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For splitting, {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|Cfd section name}}
  • For converting the category contents into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For converting the category page text into an article, {{subst:cfc|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • Please include "CFD", "CFM", "CFR", "CFS", "CFL" or "CFC" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
  • Preview before saving. The display will give more precise instructions about the next step.
  • See the documentation pages at {{cfd}}, {{cfm}}, {{cfr}}, {{cfs}}, {{cfl}} and {{cfc}} for more specific information.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfdnotice2|Category name|date=yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. See the doc page at Template:Cfdnotice2/doc for more information on how to use this template.
  • Similarly, consider adding {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator or a related WikiProject.
Create the CFD subsection.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), to copy and paste the template shown. All categories are specified without the Category: prefix.

For {{Cfd}}, use:
{{subst:cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfm}}, use:
{{subst:cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfr}} to a definite name, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Old category|New category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfr}} to an indefinite name, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Old category|to be determined by consensus|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfs}} to definite names, use:
{{subst:cfs2|Old category|New category 1|New category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfl}} or {{Cfc}}, use:
{{subst:cfc2|Origin category|Destination article|text= Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For umbrella nominations, the standard templates should build the "Cfd section name" for the 1st nomination, although the 2nd and subsequent nominations must be added manually, like this:
==== Cfd section name ====
  • 1st category
  • 2nd category
  • Your reason for nominating the category. ~~~~ (Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming.)
  • If an umbrella nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide the bulk of nominated categories.
  • When using these templates, the old and new categories you specify are automatically converted to links: you do not specify them as links yourself.
  • In your reason, please link appropriate articles or categories to help other editors.
  • In your reason, when linking to a category, always add a colon (':') in the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
  • Preview before saving to ensure all the fields have been properly listed.

Once you have previewed your entry, please make sure to add your signature after your proposal. If nominating a list of entries as a batch mentioned after your rationale, it is somewhat neater to place these after the signature (rather than leave the signature dangling at the end of the list, apparently unrelated to your reasons).

Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding to your watchlist any categories you nominate. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.


The use of Wikipedia:Twinkle greatly facilitates CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to "my preferences", the "Gadgets" tab, the "Browsing" section and check "Twinkle ...". Use the now-installed "XfD" (Nominate for deletion) tab while viewing the page to be deleted or renamed.

Users without accounts and users with new accounts[edit]

Users without accounts (unregistered users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD).

Redirecting categories[edit]


It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)

Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects.

In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.


When closing CfDs, document their results (e.g. with links to CfD page history) on the talk pages of the affected categories, if not deleted. If deleted, document the deletion decision in the deletion edit summary. See {{cfd top}}.

Special notes[edit]

When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Categories that should exist but are missing articles or subcategories should be added to Category:Underpopulated categories using {{Popcat}}.

If a category is only used as generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo-stub), and that template is deleted by a regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template, or mentioned early in the discussion.

Speedy renaming and merging


Categories may be listed for speedy renaming or speedy merging if they meet one or more of the criteria specified below. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. A request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required to process these. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.

Contested requests become stale, and can be un-tagged and de-listed, after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to continue the process, s/he needs to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.

Speedy criteria[edit]

The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C1. Unpopulated categories[edit]

That have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.
Tag category with {{Db-c1}}.

C2. Renaming or merging[edit]

C2A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours →Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
C2B. Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names.
  • This should only be used where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
  • This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages which resulted in a no consensus result.
C2E. Author request.
  • This criterion only applies if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within 28 days of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
For C2A to C2E, tag category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}} and list on WP:CFDS. Administrators may implement C2E cases without delay.

For any categories that are not speedy candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here,
    • And no objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming here[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:

* [[:Category:{old name here}]] to [[:Category:{new name here}]] – {reason for rename here} ~~~~

This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.

Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC). Currently, there are 38 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

Conditional oppose "Counsellors" is the British and Canadian spelling, according to Wiktionary. It should not be changed per WP:RETAIN. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposed nominations[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]
Moved to full discussion[edit]
Oppose Belgium at the very least. Most of the categories in the list are definitively not historical (see Flemish Diamond for example), while a great many are natural regions defined based on geology and flora. This move doesn't make any sense really. Oreo Priest talk 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Oreo Priest: You're right, Belgium is one of the few countries that is lacking a Category:Regions of Belgium. Suggest to rename Category:Geographical, historical and cultural areas of Belgium‎ to Category:Regions of Belgium instead. I'll move to full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:Geographical, historical and cultural regions of France‎ to Category:Historical regions in France
Full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_26#Category:Geographical.2C_historical_and_cultural_areas_of_Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fayenatic london, as reference please also see discussion and closure at: Talk:Korean Americans#Requested move 11 March 2015 and, on this basis, I would also like to request a move of Category:Korean American to Category:Korean Americans on a similar basis of main article title.

A logical extension of the argument regarding article coverage would ultimately I think require article moves such as: AmericansAmerican and British peopleBritish

The TOC at Americans presents:

1 Overview
2 Racial and ethnic groups
2.1 White and European Americans
2.2 Hispanic and Latino Americans
2.3 Black and African Americans
2.4 Asian Americans
2.5 American Indians and Alaska Natives
2.6 Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders
2.7 Two or more races
3 National personification
4 Language
5 Religion
6 Culture
7 American diaspora

The TOC at British people which presents content:

4 Culture
4.1 Cuisine
4.2 Language
4.3 Literature
4.4 Media and music
4.5 Religion
4.6 Sport
4.7 Visual art and architecture
4.8 Political culture

Please also see articles on topics: Austrian Canadians, Black Canadians, Czech Canadians, Indo-Canadians, Japanese Canadians, Lebanese Canadians, Nigerian Canadians, South Sudanese Canadians, Sri Lankan Canadians, Syrian Canadians, Trinidadian and Tobagonian Canadians and List of Turkish Canadians

On the basis of these main articles I would also like to request further moves as:

I think that it is fair for Categories to directly represent the content of the articles that they contain so as to better enable editors to assess the various arguments in regard to article title choice. GregKaye 09:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought and work you have put into this. The article renaming a may be a good idea, but this is not the place to discuss them. I suggest that the categories should not be merged in the way you have suggested, but instead the top categories should be renamed with "society" at the end. At the top level, Category:Society is the parent of Category:Culture, Category:History and Category:People, so it would match this structure if Fooian American society was the parent of Fooian American culture, Fooian American history and Fooian Americans (the latter being for people). – Fayenatic London 11:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have started a full discussion at May 17. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the template categories are named slightly differently than the article categories, and "Religion and belief" is more inclusive for the templates, since there are some in there that are related to beliefs and not necessarily religion. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI-the Contents/Categories are actually Portal:Contents/Religion and belief systems, but the categories for articles are separated into both "Religion" and "Belief", when maybe they should be under "Religion and belief systems". Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this is more suitable for full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Now at full CFD. – Fayenatic London 10:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:IgG4-related diseases[edit]
  • Category:IgG4-related diseases to Category:IgG4-related disease – C2D/C2C per IgG4-related disease. There should not be an 's' at the end of 'disease' in the category name. Although it can have manifestations in multiple areas of the body and many of its individual organ or site manifestations (e.g. IgG4-related pancreatitis, IgG4-related aortitis) have individual names, IgG4-related disease is itself considered a single multiorgan disease entity and use of the plural for the category name is wrong[1] - McLondon (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose This is a set category and therefore the title should be in plural. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There is only one disease called IgG4-related disease so it can only be a topic category in the singular rather than the plural. The link I supplied was to the internationally accepted "Recommendations for the nomenclature of IgG4-related disease and its individual organ system manifestations" from 2012. To conjure up a set category using the plural form "diseases", it would need to be called something like "IgG4-related disease diseases" or "Diseases associated with IgG4-related disease"! - McLondon (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment: @Armbrust: I believe the nominator is correct. This one is my fault. When this was nominated a week ago, removing "systemic" from the name, the nomination did not explain the reason for also dropping the "s", and instead of processing it as nominated, I did it as a change from "systemic diseases" to "diseases", without checking whether the nomination to use the singular "disease" was intentional. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, McLondon, you'll have to use {{cfr}} and start a full discussion. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Full discussion here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:History of the Czech Republic[edit]
@Brandmeister: Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis[edit]
  • Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis to Category:Ukrainian crisis – C2D: Main article was moved to Ukrainian crisis. RGloucester 05:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Comment didn't we discuss just this category name last month? -- (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    It was nominated previously and opposed. This needs a full CfD. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    It was not "opposed". Only one person of questionable intelligence voiced some "concerns" about it. The move must be speedied immediately, per C2D. Please stop disrupting what is necessary for the continuance of the encylopaedia. Carry out the move at once, or action will need to be taken. RGloucester 16:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Why the hurry? If you just nominate this on CfD it'll be okay in a couple of weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose speedy process, as C2D says "If the page names are controversial… in any way, then this criterion does not apply." – Fayenatic London 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I absolutely refuse to open CfD. This must go through as a speedy. We cannot allow people of disruptive characters to rule this encylopaedia. The page name is not controversial. It was decided through an RM, recently. Hence, that does not apply. I absolutely refuse to wait any longer. This must go through at once, or I will be forced to request administrative action against any who obfuscate it. C2D. Move the page, now. RGloucester 18:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Now at full discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose, though I love the idea that there has only been one Ukrainian crisis. Would that it were so. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    @JzG: As the discussion has moved to a full CFD, you may want to comment here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Category:History of Serbia during Habsburg administration[edit]
Category:German Jews who immigrated to the United States to escape Nazism[edit]
  • Category:German Jews who immigrated to the United States to escape Nazism to Category:German Jews who emmigrated to the United States to escape Nazism Grammar. You emigrate to, immigrate from. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    I believe it's the other way around, which is why these categories were renamed. You immigrate to somewhere, emigrate from. You are an emigrant from the place you leave, but an immigrant to the place you arrive in. (This is a different format than all of the "FOOian emigrants to BAR" categories on Wikipedia because the noun here is "Jews", not "emigrants". The "immigrated" part here is a verb, with the object of "to the United States ...") Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    No, you immigrate from, emigrate to. [2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not following you at all, since the links you included say the opposite of what you are saying:
    First link: "The prefix e- (or ex-) usually means 'out of' or 'from.' The prefix im- (or in-) often means 'in' or 'into.' Therefore, emigrate means 'to move out of' and immigrate means 'to move into.'
    Second link: "To emigrate is to leave your country to reside elsewhere. To immigrate is to enter and reside in a new country." Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    Can it be a difference between English variants? Off-topic, in my native language it is similar as to what Hawkeye suggests: 'to move out to' and 'to move in from'. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think that the definition of the words vary by form of English. I think Hawkeye7 is just plain wrong when he states that you "immigrate from" but "emigrate to", since that's not how the words are strictly defined. But I think the comment by Place Clichy below is true as well—which one is chosen to be used in a particular sentence context can vary depending on where the emphasis or focus lies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    I would tend to go for emigrate to the United States (one m). Both are grammatically correct (see [5] [6] for emigrate to Australia, [7] cites "He emigrated to Belgium" in the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language). It seems to be a matter of emphasis on the selected point of view (see [8]) and the emphasis here is on the pressure to leave the original country (words German, Jews and Nazism) rather than the US as a choice of country. See also this usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "After the Nazis came to power in Germany, many scientists emigrated" but "The promise of prosperity here in the United States encouraged many people to immigrate". Clearly we're in the first case here. Place Clichy (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm open to renaming based on the rationale of the above comment (not based on the original rationale). I suppose it might be a good idea to have a full discussion about this, since in context there is no "correct" way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    Per Clichy, you always say emigrate to and immigrate from. "Emigrate" is to leave; "immigrate" is to arrive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think that's true at all that one (ie, sources) always use it in the way you suggest in your first sentence. Your second sentence is correct, though, but can be read as contradicting your first sentence in the following ways. It is perfectly acceptable and common to state that "He immigrated to the United States", meaning he moved to the United States. It would be equally acceptable to say, "He emigrated from France", meaning he left France. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Move approved then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    The category was moved from Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, with its UK sibling (Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism to Category:Jews who immigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism), per unopposed speedy request here, proposed by User:Wikimandia. It seems to me that they are now inconsistent with parent categories and should be reverted. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose You immigrate TO; you emigrate FROM. And you certainly don't "emmigrate" anywhere. These are often confused so examples of them being mixed up are rampant; "" and "freedictionary" are not acceptable grammar sources. There is no difference in English by area. Please see actual definitions and explanations listed below:
  • @Fayenatic london: @Hawkeye7: @Good Olfactory: @Place Clichy: In addition to the above examples, this is already covered in WP:MOS: Please see emigrate and immigrate in the Wikipedia:List_of_commonly_misused_English_words#E МандичкаYO 😜 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Where the first word in a migrants category refers to the place they came from, e.g. most sub-cats of Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom, the next word is "emigrants". I accept that "Jews" is not a national origin, and therefore that pattern does not mandate us to use "emigrated". However, "immigrated" seems clumsy and unnatural. Why don't we simply use "migrated"? – Fayenatic London 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic london: OK, I'm confused. Sorry - I'm not sure why "immigrated" seems clumsy or unnatural. Also even if you used the word "migrated" instead of "immigrated" it wouldn't match the pattern either of having the subject be "emigrant." Plus, "Migrated" or "migrants" refers to never permanently settling somewhere; just migrating back and forth or from place to place. Anyway, I don't think there is a rule that every subcategory must be 100 percent uniform. Certainly this is ideal but in some cases it can't be helped. These categories by necessity are slightly different because it's about where they came from; they were fleeing/escaping FROM Nazi Germany. МандичкаYO 😜 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        We are all in agreement on the definition of the words. What we are talking about is English usage. Native speakers of English have certain combinations of words that are preferred. That is why "immigrated" seems clumsy or unnatural. That is why the original wording is preferred. We now have inconsistency with the parent and sibling categories. We also have a category that will be harder for users to find because it is worded oddly. Note that it is not about leaving Nazi Germany per se. In fact, many people did not go directly to the United States, but first went to other countries. Also, some people were citizens of other countries like Poland who fled when the Nazis got too close. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        Given the discussion here, I think that User:Fayenatic london is right that the previous speedy move should be reversed, and then the original categories should be nominated for renaming at a full CFD discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: OK, now I'm even more confused. Immigrate and emigrate are pronounced nearly exactly the same - how could one sound clumsy or unnatural? Being that I AM a native English speaker, this claim makes no sense to me. Emigrate/immigrate sound about as different as insure/ensure, but yet they are different words with different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably. It makes NO sense to rename the categories back to the wrong definition of a word because some people claim they sound funny (even though they sound exactly the same except for the slightest difference of one syllable). Notice it is even in the WP:MOS how to properly use these words - see the link to Commonly Misused Words. Reverting the speedy rename is not an option anymore than substituting "Passed" for "Past" because it "sounds better." As for my point about where they came from, I'm aware people going in the category could be Polish, German, Dutch, French, Belgian, etc. That's why it's a catch-all category. It doesn't matter the route they took - the word immigration by definition (handy links provided above!) means permanently settling somewhere else. The people in Category:Jews who immigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism stayed in the UK. МандичкаYO 😜 02:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
They sound very different indeed. It's amazing what difference a syllable makes. (Also we pronounce D and T very differently too.) The words are not being used wrongly; immigration doesn't mean permanent in that sense. Some people simply moved on to another country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 - I'm really curious - where are you from that it is pronounced so differently? Do you have an example of where I can hear this? Yes, immigrate in this case (as per the definition) means to permanently settle, or at least to have lived a considerable amount of time. If there is anyone who only passed through the UK/US then they shouldn't be listed in that category. МандичкаYO 😜 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: The issue is not that it "sounds bad". Both would be grammatically correct (see [9] [10] for emigrate to Australia, [11] cites "He emigrated to Belgium" in the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language). It seems to be a matter of emphasis on the selected point of view (see [12]) and the emphasis here is on the pressure to leave the original country (words German, Jews and Nazism) rather than the US as a choice of country. See also this usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "After the Nazis came to power in Germany, many scientists emigrated" but "The promise of prosperity here in the United States encouraged many people to immigrate". Clearly we're in the first case here.
I would also like to remind you that the nominated category is Category:German Jews who immigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, which was previously speedily moved from Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, so the source country is mentioned, unlike the to-UK cat. Place Clichy (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Place Clichy, OK, as I pointed out, "" is not a reliable source, is not even a government source, but one of a million companies that sell visas online. Same with freedictionary. It claims to get the info from Collins Dictionary - obviously not. You can see the definition directly at Collins here: Immigrate: "to come to a place or country of which one is not a native in order to settle there" and Emigrate: "to leave one place or country, esp one's native country, in order to settle in another". Both match the Merriam-Webster and Cambridge definitions. "Emigrate to" and "immigrate to" are not both grammatically correct. I definitely support renaming the US one to match the UK one, since I don't think "German" needs to be emphasized, since 1) as has been pointed out, these borders were rapidly changing, and 2) the category is relatively small and it's not like there are other categories eg "Polish Jews who immigrated to the US" or "French Jews who immigrated to the US" etc. МандичкаYO 😜 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikimandia I understand what immigrate and emigrate mean. Your own Collins link cites 3 examples, all 3 of them use emigrate to. Place Clichy (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ready for deletion[edit]

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Categories possibly emptied out of process[edit]

Note. Categories listed here will be automatically moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 96 hours.
Note. Due to limits of the software, all contents of the category may not be displayed. View the category directly to see all contents.