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.


CfD is only intended for discussions where an editor already has a clear action proposal in mind. For general brainstorming on how to improve the category system, good places for discussion include Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and the talk pages of any WikiProjects relevant to the content covered by the categories in question.

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 seven 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.
Otherwise, if a single category:
If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, and 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 other options (containerization, etc.), {{subst:cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|Cfd section name}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
  • Please include "CFD", "CFM", "CFR", "CFS" or "CFL" 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}} and {{cfl}} for more specific information.
  • Similarly, consider adding {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|2016 September 26|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator or a related WikiProject.
Create the CFD section.

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}}, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfs}}, use:
{{subst:cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfl}}, use:
{{subst:cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfd|type=other type}}, use:
{{subst:cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
When using these templates, the old and new categories you specify are automatically converted to links; do not use square brackets to specify them as links yourself.
For umbrella nominations, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, like this:
==== Cfd section name ====
  • 1st category
  • 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]
  • Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.
  • If an umbrella nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide the bulk of nominated categories.
  • 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 (:) to the beginning of 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.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

While it is sufficient to list a category for discussion at CfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the CfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an category be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "C1" for unpopulated categories C2C "Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree".

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the CfD.

It may also be helpful to post a message on the talkpage of a related article, like Protein family for Category:Protein families. You can use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Notifying substantial contributors to the category

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the category and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page. You can use {{Cfd-notify}} to inform the creator of the category, and {{Cfdnotice2}} for all other editors.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

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 any categories you nominate to your watchlist. 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 soft redirected categories.


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.

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 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 seven 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, they need to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.

Speedy criteria[edit]

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

This criterion is split into four different sub-criteria:

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 be used only 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 be applied only 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 because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that 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 that resulted in a no consensus result.
C2E. Author request.
  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months 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 that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

  • 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 and merging 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]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

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 10:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 67 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

Opposed nominations[edit]

KEEP - this is a list of sculpture that the Piccirilli Brothers carved. They are mostly NOT the sculptors of these pieces. Please read or just skim our article on the Brothers before doing anything here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciated that - but the new name doesn't imply that they are the sculptors, merely that they had a hand in the creation. Bear in mind that the category system is not intended to reflect all the subtle details, it merely serves to help people find things - and you'll find many, many articles in the "Sculptures by..." hierarchy that have many variations in the involvement of the person named. But we try to avoid WP:Overcategorization, we don't have a category for "Sculptures where Michaelangelo did the face but got his students to do the legs", that way madness lies. Since this category has to have "Piccirilli Brothers" and the nature of its content means that the name has to start with "Sculptures", then linking the two with "by" is the most parsimonious and elegant way of doing it. I'm not completely against the idea of a separate category, but would have to be convinced that it's not a WP:SMALLCAT.Le Deluge (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: it could be kept, but not at the current name. It should be "Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers" or something similar. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Reply to @Le Deluge: I looked at the 68 entries at Category:Sculptures by artist and as far as I could tell all of them are sculptors, none are folks who "had a hand in the creation" of works by others. I did not go and look at all 68 of them, is this necessary to do? Perhaps you can point out a few examples? And this is NOT akin to your "Sculptures where Michaelangelo did the face but got his students to do the legs" - so madness does not lie in this direction. There are other carvers who could conceivably rate their own categories but most of them rare not even red links yet. As far as WP:SMALLCAT is concerned, I have continued adding to the category and it is now at 16, probably more than most of the sculptors have in theirs. I have identified about 90 works carved by the Brothers, most of with are not yet articles. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
KEEP, but alter - "Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers" may be the right solution. Piccirilli Brothers are best known for carving other sculptors' works. Category:Sculptures by the Piccirilli Brothers should be reserved for their own sculptures, which are not as well known. Cramming together other sculptors' works (carved by them) and the Piccirilli Brothers' own works will cause unnecessary confusion. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. "Sculptures by the Piccirilli Brothers" may be more elegant, but in this particular case "Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers" is more meaningful (I'm not a fan of the 'one size fits all without execption' approach to categorisation). It can still remain in the existing category tree. Sionk (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
KEEP okay, change to Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. Carptrash (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Even then 10 out of 74 in Category:Sportswomen use 'women' including most football ones. And it is 'sportswomen'. This is not a speedy. Oculi (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hakka is already an expatriate ethnicity, so that it is not necessary to add "descent". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: whether you're correct or not, this rename only creates consistency. It does not introduce any new categorization. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Peterkingiron: The fact that Hakka migrated from Northern to Southern China, and therefore are the "guest people" and outsiders is irrelevant. These Hakka people in these cases migrated all the way to North America, and so clearly are diaspora in this case.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no other Don Davis is like to have created musical compositions. The only change needed is that his name should not be piped in the headnote, so that it is obvious what the main article is called. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this necessary? I'm not Canadian, but I've been under the impression that Canadians use both spellings. All other categories except for GB use one L. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • One "L" is improper English and gets you big red circles in English class. Why should we use US English when it is a Canadian category? If you use an automated spellcheck and either it doesn't have a Canadian setting or you don't set it for Canadian, it will likely default to American, resulting in single-L uses. As well, people on the Internet use bad spellings. So, if we want to only use U.S. English, then use one-L. If we want to allow people to use the native English spellings then use two-L's; If the British categories are allowed to use two-L's then the Canadian ones should be allowed to use Canadian English and use two-L's. -- (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think User:Tavix might be suggesting that spelling the word with two Ls or with one L are both acceptable in Canadian English. That's certainly been my experience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If it isn't accepted by an English teacher for Canadian English, then we shouldn't use it for category names. It's acceptable to use many incorrect spelling in many different locations. I see people spell things "big fish" (instead of whale), "banana" (instead of plantain), "tyre" (instead of tire), "football" (instead of soccer), "honor" (instead of honour) ; and people accept the spelling without being overly excited about it, but it doesn't mean it's proper Canadian English. If we want to standardize on American English, we should do it for British categories as well. -- (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Who is this "English teacher for Canadian English" you speak of? I was educated in Canada, and I think either spelling would be accepted by most English teachers there. The ones who wouldn't be those who have a particular "thing" for rejecting U.S. English, but in practical terms, Canadian English is often a mix of U.S. and British English and often either forms of spelling are acceptable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Several of my English teacher friends mark that way. "LL""L" Canadian News results shows a 3:1 preference for the double-L spelling, showing the preferred form in Canadian English. And it isn't British or American, it's Canadian, why should we use either American or British as the choices, instead of just using Canadian? ("honour"(Canada) not "honor"(US); "civilization"(Canada) not "civilisation"(UK);) -- (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mostly because there is no universally recognized thing called "Canadian English". It is a mis-mash to U.S. English and British English, and the standards are applied inconsistently and variably depending on where in Canada one chooses to assesses the language. Nova Scotia English is considerably different than Alberta English, and Ontario English is different still. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • By that standard, there's no such thing as British English or American English, since Cockney is different from that of The North; or Ebonics is not the same as Southern, etc -- (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, not exactly. There has been far more work towards establishing a "standard" British English and a "standard" American English than there has been for Canadian English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and officially oppose this then. There's no need to deviate from the spelling used for the rest of categories. I noted Great Britain is an exception, but unlike Canada, they don't use both spellings. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Where either variant is acceptable, there is no reason to break consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm a speaker of Canadian English, and one-l vs. two-ll in a word like "medal(l)ist" or "travel(l)er" is one of those things I and many other Canadians are entirely incapable of even keeping straight which one's the "American" spelling and which one's the "British/Canadian" one. There are certainly some "Canadian spellings" that are straightforward and easy to remember — cheque and centre over check or center, but tire and curb over tyre or kerb — but there are also many others where it's hard to keep track of which variant is the officially correct Canadian English form, and this is one of them. Nominator is welcome to take it to a full CFR if he feels strongly about it, but it's not appropriate for speedy. I would suggest, however, that the two-ll forms should be created as categoryredirects to the one-l, or the one-l forms kept as categoryredirects to the two-ll if CFR closes as a move, because there's clearly some dispute. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The point is that Americans are not working on the articles, so whether one-l is a valid form seems moot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The point is that even Canadians largely don't know which spelling is "correct" in Canadian English and which one is "wrong" — we should probably have categoryredirects in place for whichever spelling we aren't actually using as the "real" category, so that articles don't accidentally get left sitting in redlinked categories by people using the other spelling, but "Canadian English" spelling of this word is not as clearcut as it's been made out to be. And anyway, the debate is never going to resolve here; it needs to be taken to a full CFD if anybody feels strongly enough about it, but the opposes here have already permanently killed any possibility of this ever being speedied. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]

Moved to full discussion[edit]
  • None currently.

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.