Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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.
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 July 30|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 spefcified 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:

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.
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 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 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 13:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 94 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

Opposed nominations[edit]

Oppose : the overall category is Category:Wooden buildings and structures and only its subcategory referring to timber framing use the term "Timber" Hugo999 (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah - I'd agree with Hugo, for the reasons of the current category system. If you want to be picky and pedantic about it, timber is usually converted to lumber before being used in construction anyway. It's worth noting that the current timber bridge article arrived at its current length after a merger with the similarly sized article wooden bridge (now a redirect). Judging by the earlier content of the two articles, it could be yet another instance of one name (timber) used in the US and one (wooden) used in the rest of the English-speaking world - in which case C2D may suggest "yes", but C2A suggests "no". Grutness...wha? 06:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
Moved to full discussion[edit]
Oppose Shouldn't it be Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland)? Pppery (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Category:Northern Irish Queen's Counsel to Category:Queen's Counsel from Northern Ireland – C2C: per convention of Category:People from Northern Ireland. Please retain the old title as a {{category redirect}} BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I think the more relevant convention is that of Category:Queen's Counsel which use the current style. Number 57 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Number 57: the demonym-phrase overrules the occupational category convention, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Northern_Irish_people and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_13. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Fayenatic london: I can't really respond in detail right now as don't have laptop access, but in summary I believe the idea that we shouldn't use the phrase Northern Irish is a fringe POV pushed by some Irish nationalists that should not have gained any credence on Wikipedia. Both of the discussions you linked to were proposals from the notorious editor Vintagekits, who was indef blocked years ago due to his unacceptable behaviour (and just to clarify, I am not putting BHG in the same category as Vintagekits et al.). Number 57 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
          • @Number 57: well, here's an interesting situation. IMHO C2C still permits speedy renaming, because there is a convention that is well defined and overwhelmingly used within the hierarchy. Only C2D mentions "uncontroversial"; C2C doesn't. But if you still object and would prefer a full CfD, then let's go that way. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes please (whilst I appreciate there is a naming convention on the Northern Ireland side, there is also one on the Queen's Counsel side, and I think it might be worth raising the Northern Irish issue again for a more reasoned discussion now that some of the more combative editors in that field are no longer with us). And I'm not sure what you're saying – even if there are objections, the category should still be moved if it's clear there is a well-defined convention? That's not my experience (I recall a couple of C2C nominations I made here that were objected to despite conventions being in place). Cheers, Number 57 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Yes, I'm saying that the wording above allows a well-defined convention to be applied speedily even if there are objections. Perhaps the others that you referred to were not processed speedily because there was some ambiguity. In this case, although there is a clash of two conventions, it is clear which one should override the other. However, I'm not going to push it. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
              • A good compromise which I would favour that I wish would get more attention would be "Northern Ireland FOOs". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
                • Good Olfactory's proposal seems to be the best solution for the whole category tree, but in that case we'd need to rediscuss Category:Northern Irish people. Should we do so? Absolutely. But is there someone willing to prepare a nomination? --PanchoS (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • Sigh.
                    1. Number 57's comments about the January 2009 CFR which created this convention are disappointing. At least 13 editors !voted in that discussion, and its outcome (by a clear margin) has been stable for 7 years .. so whatever anyone's view of the rest of the activities of the long-since-banned Vintagekits, his proposal in this case has been shown to have a durable consensus.
                      Similarly, the July 2009 CFR was approved with zero opposes. I find it rather sad to see the concerns of Irish editors being dismissed as "fringe" ... and BTW, AFAICS, only 1 out of 6 editors in the July 2009 discussion was Irish.
                    2. If Number 57 objects to the convention applied to dozens of categories, then the way to raise that issue is to open a group CFR to rename all the effected categories, rather than to obstruct the harmomisation of a lone outlier. If and when the convention is changed, then this category can be changed along with it ... but until then, the objection serves no useful purpose. It just maintains an outlier, whose non-std format impedes categorisation.
                    3. Same for Good Olfactory's proposal for a "Northern Ireland fooers" format. . Whatever the merits of that idea (I'm not persuaded so far), it would need a group CFR. This isn't the place to pursue it.
                    4. In the meantime, please can this speedy just proceed? It won't prejudice any future proposal to change the convention, so I can see no gain to anyone from leaving this outlier uncorrected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
                    • My comment was just me floating a general idea. I think that's an OK thing to do in almost any context—it's not advocating for a particular change in this particular proposal, but it's giving users something to think about when the overall context is considered. I think that this particular change that was proposed should have been done speedily. But as you know @BrownHairedGirl: I've thought this about a number of other instances as well, and the approach has always seemed to be that any opposition is sufficient to move the issue to a full discussion. I still generally do not agree with this approach when we encounter nominations and opposition as in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
                      • GO, I support the principle that a sustained objection should stop a speedy. The point of speedies is that they are for uncontroversial actions, so if an objection is sustained, they don't qualify. I hoped that in this case Number 57 might withdraw their objection, but the move to full CFD has made that moot.
                        As to floating the idea, that's fine. I was just trying to discuss use of theis venue for extended discussion on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Moved to CFD here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2016 (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.