Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:CfD)
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 August 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 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:

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 01:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 136 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

Opposed nominations[edit]

  • 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)
  • 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. 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
  • Category:Historians from the Republic of Venice to Category:Republic of Venice historians – C2C in Category:Republic of Venice people. Although the revised name could be taken as ambiguous, it follows the others in Category:Historians by nationality. – Fayenatic London 07:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Category:Explorers from the Republic of Venice to Category:Republic of Venice explorers
      • Oppose, because of the ambiguity already discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 14. Sionk (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Sionk: As there was a strong consensus at that CfD to keep the existing convention for Fooian explorers, the proposal here is C2C after all; so do you withdraw your opposition, at least for the explorers category? – Fayenatic London 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Why would I do that? The category has already been renamed following a CfD. These are explorers/historians from the Republic of Venice, not of the Republic of Venice. Unlike many other nationalities, there is no adjective to describe people from the Republic of Venice. It's pointless blndly following convention when there is no 'one size that fits all'. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
          • @Sionk: Because the parent is Category:Republic of Venice people, which contains many more occupations named like that. The point of the 2014 CfD was to insert "Republic of" in place of Venetian. By the consensus of the latest CfD, which rejected using "from" in all other cases, the 2014 participants worried too much when they put the location at the end of the name instead of the beginning to avoid ambiguity. – Fayenatic London 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
            • We could just renominate it for a full discussion. I supported the previous renaming, but in light of the more recent outcome, I would be happy to support changing it back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
          • @Fayenatic london: As you can see the previous CfD discussion for historians and explorers (separate from all other professions) was raised to avoid ambiguity in these two specific categories. As was raised in the other Cfd, New Zealand suffers the same issues (there's no adjective 'Newzealandish'). Well, if the consensus is to restore this confusing ambiguity then so be it, I don't have the time or inclination to spend more time on these daft 'one size fits all' arguments. Sionk (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
            • @Sionk: Category definitions can be used to resolve any ambiguity that exists for a category based on its name if the ambiguity results from the name conforming to a convention. A sizable portion of category names are not 100% unambiguous, so this is not a new problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
              • Who reads category definitions before adding a category? No one. A simple and practical solution would be to name categories so they are unambigious, rather than a rigid "This category was named that way, so all similar categories must follow regardless". Sionk (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
                • @Sionk: We have no way of knowing one way or the other the percentage of readers that read category headers, so I'm not sure how you are so sure that "no one" does. (I, for one, do read them when they are there – so your (perhaps exaggerrated?) opinion can't be correct.) Anyways, thinking more broadly, categories cannot always be 100% unambiguous, so the solution you propose is neither simple nor practical in many circumstances. Thinking of the category scheme as a whole, I think it makes more sense (and would generally be more helpful) to bring as much predictability and standardization as possible to the system, and then issues of relatively minor ambiguity could be dealt with through category definitions. It has the added beauty of being generally in line with current and historical practice on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion[edit]
Oppose Shouldn't it be Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland)? Pppery (talk) 22:10, 14 July 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.

511 BC
517 BC
523 BC
528 BC