This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
For detailed instructions about using CfD, see "How to use CfD" below. Briefly, nominations are handled through one of two processes:
Speedy renaming and merging, for uncontroversial proposals that meet specified criteria—see "Speedy renaming and merging" below.
Full discussion, for all other proposals. Discussions typically remain open for at least seven days and are closed once a rough consensus has formed or no objections to the nomination are raised.
Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.
When a category is renamed or merged with another category, in limited circumstances it may be helpful to leave an instance of the ((Category redirect|...)) template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.
Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a CfD request that is limited in scope to renaming, as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of a CfD move discussion to determine whether or not the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines. CfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages.
You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Start a deletion discussion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.
Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category or stub template. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, see § MassCFD.
Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.
Include "CfD", "CfM", "CfR", "CfS" or "CfL" in the edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
To add the template for previous nomination days, use the "full" version of the template by appending "full" to the template name, i.e. ((cfd full)), ((cfm full)), ((cfr full)), ((cfs full)) and ((cfl full)). Use the |day=, |month= and |year= parameters to make the banner link to the correct CfD page.
Consider adding ((subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 June 18|CfD section name)) ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.
Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the text= parameter, omit the Category: prefix and do not use wikilinks, as the template takes care of this.
If nominating a single category:
For deleting, use ((subst:Cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~))
For merging, use ((subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~))
For merging to two categories, use ((subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category 1|target2=Destination category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~))
For renaming, use ((subst:Cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~))
For splitting, use ((subst:Cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~))
For converting the category into a list, use ((subst:Cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~))
For other options (containerization, etc.), use ((subst:Cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~))
For a bundled nomination, 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, as follows:
==== 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 a bundled nomination is too long, consider using ((hidden)) to hide some of the nominated categories.
In your reason, use links if mentioning articles or categories. To link to a category, use the colon trick by adding a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Foo]].
Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.
Stub types
I
Preliminary steps.
In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:
Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update the default parameters):
For deletion, use ((subst:sfd-t2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~))
For renaming, use ((subst:sfr-t2|TemplateOldName|TemplateNewName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~))
In your rationale, mention how many articles currently use the template to help other editors. When linking to a category in your rationale, 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 check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.
Notifying interested projects and editors
In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.
Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use ((subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 June 18|CfD section name)) ~~~~ or write a personalized message.
Notifying substantial contributors to the category
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use ((Cfd notice)) to inform the category's creator and all other editors.
Notifying other interested editors
It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use ((Cfdnotice)) for this.
After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion. Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and, except in the case of a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented.
In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]), we use a form of "soft redirect" 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.
In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.
Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.
Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy 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") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as ((db|reason)) with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with ((db-empty)). Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.
To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:
Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~
You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.
Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted 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 revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.
If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.
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).
Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.
C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices
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 applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.
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.
This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use ((subst:cfm-speedy)) (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).
Admin instructions
When handling the listings:
Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.
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 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 ~~~~
* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
Remember to tag the category page 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 00:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 342 open requests (refresh).
Administrators and page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories are processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot.
Current requests
Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).
Category:Osu Salem School teaching staff to Category:Teachers at Osu Salem School – C2C: siblings are Schoolteachers by school and they're either FOOian teachers or Teachers at FOO (and definitely not teaching staff). I'm indifferent between Osu Salem School teachers and Teachers at Osu Salem School, so I picked one. If anyone feels strongly, I'm happy to use the alterative name Mason (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:oppose the above duchesses, countesses and baronesses nominations, the proposed name wrongly suggests that Duchess of Foo was their title, while these categories are in fact about Fooian nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kings of the Romans nominations. "King of the Romans" is a full title, it has nothing to do with Romans. Also, this has been on full discussion before. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: How is this different from MOS:JOBTITLES? King becomes kings when pluralized in all applications that I'm aware of. What more is a discussion supposed to yield? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this in case you missed the ping @Marcocapelle. Is the idea that "Kings of the Romans" is itself a proper title? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is right. This should be at full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not propose those other categories for name changing too. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the main article title is gamer, it talks about board gamers and card gamers, but only video gamers should use this style? Gonnym (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity", "Medieval Latin-language writers", "Old Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers".
This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period. Jim Killock(talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
Old Latin writers
Classical Latin writers
Medieval Latin writers
Renaissance Latin writers
Neo-Latin Latin writers
I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications. Jim Killock(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKillock I know. Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period. NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
Category:Writers in Classical Latin; Category:Writers in Neo-Latin - these all refer to a style; they are acceptable from that perspective, but they sounds strange / clumsy to my ear; the natural way to say is Category:Classical Latin writers, Category:Neo-Latin writers, or as close to that as WP allows.
Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong. Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old Latin or Old Latin writers. So Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be Category:Writers using Old Latin.
Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin - refer to a time period and remove the style names. These would need to be Category:Writers in Renaissance Latin; Category:Writers in Medieval Latin. This is not great English, most natural would be Category:Medieval Latin writers, Category: Renaissance Latin writers
So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --Jim Killock(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this will have to be moved to full then... NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The categories listed below have been identified as empty using ((db-catempty)), and will be speedily deleted after 7 days unless populated. (Note: Due to technical limitations, all contents of the category may not be displayed; view the category directly to see all contents.)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.