Categories
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles

Template:Cfr is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

This template is a self-reference.

Text change

I think that the text should be changed to make it clearer that the proposal is for renaming not deletion. At the moment, the template says

The problem is the big bold text at the start with the word deletion. I propose a change to

This is based on ((cfru)) and ((cfm)). Any objections? SeventyThree^(Talk) 16:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason it was changed to the current wording was because sometimes debates end with a consensus to delete the category all together, and this should be reflected in the template. Tim! 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree strongly that the current "This category is being considered for deletion" is extremely misleading. I understand that the process is technically deleting plus creation of a new category plus moving all contents into the new category. But couldn't the message say something like that? Such as, "This category is being considered for renaming… . However, there may be a consensus to delete…."—Markles 17:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Renaming" is equally (if not more) misleading, as it is not possible to use the "move page" feature on a category. You have to delete it, and re-create it at a different title. Also there are cases where the contents of one category are "merged", i.e. the links to the deleted category are replaced with a different category that already exists. The new wording accurately reflects the procedure in those cases as well. — May. 19, '06 [19:27] <freak|talk>

I don't think the lack of a 'move' feature should affect the wording of the template. That's a technical issue, and we have a fudge to get around it. To the people who use the category, all the articles move into a different category which is the same as the old category except for the name. In effect, the category has been renamed.

The wording at the moment ("considered for renaming or deletion") is fairly good. Some categories up for deletion end up getting renamed or merged, so maybe we should change the text on the other templates as well?

Another option, to keep the templates different, could be "There is a proposal to rename this category to [[Category:(({1))}]] in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Deletion policies." This is more accurate, And it doesn't restrict the outcome at all (merging/moving to an article/userfying etc.). On the other hand, it doesn't mention any other outcomes, so people might assume that the category is safe. Can somebody improve on this? If not, I'm fairly happy with the current text. SeventyThree^(Talk) 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anybody complain if I just merged the words of this and similar templates into the main Template:Cfd? Since, in practice, anything can happen, why not just have one template reflecting that. — May. 24, '06 [07:18] <freak|talk>

Yes, too hard to document. I did merge cfru, as the new parserfunctions made it easier.

--William Allen Simpson 10:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The error message for not "subst:"ing the template is incorrect. It currently refers to "Cfd" rather than "Cfr". Please edit "((error:not substituted|cfd))" to read "((error:not substituted|cfr))". This is a simple fix, but the template is locked. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Time_to_complete_the_grand_renaming.3F. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone please change the category on this template from Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates to the subcategory Category:Category maintenance templates where other category-related templates are grouped? e.g. ((Cfm)), ((Cfr-speedy)). Thx. Dl2000 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editprotected))

The link to the policy can be updated to Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies for simplicity and to avoid unnecessary redirects, as well as to avoid disconcerting people who may notice that "discussion" links to "deletion". - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y Done --ais523 17:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

((editprotected)) Reformat the code as follows:

((subst:cfr2|Cfr|UNKNOWN|text='''Rename'''. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~))

--Yecril (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: 1) Please be more specific about what you want changed, and provide the exact code you want added. 2), how is this any different to what's there already? Happy‑melon 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The instruction to add a comment comes before the instruction to add the entry. This is somewhat misleading for the poster. It should be noted that the first part is for others and the second part is for the poster. --Yecril (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((edit protected)) Please add this line to the top as the template falls under T3 and is no longer needed for the new process.

<noinclude>((db-t3|1=~~~~~|2=cfd1))</noinclude>

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose CSD. See also WT:CFD - jc37 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've disabled the edit-protected request for speedy deletion as it seems beyond its scope, and there is a distinct lack of consensus. The template is still widely linked from policy pages for example. Please get some consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editprotected)) Could a templatey administrator replace all cases of
<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>
with
(({|safesubst:))}
and remove
((Pp-template|small=yes))
at Template:Cfr? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 225° 43' 45" NET 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to participate in the discussion at Template talk:Cfd all#Should the tags for nominating categories to be renamed be purple in stead of pink?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from Template talk:Cfr full

 – ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request to Template:Cfr full has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In my latest sandbox version, I made the template more tolerant in regard to a prepended "Category:" namespace in the (({target))} parameter. The current technique appends the current (!) namespace as a prefix, which in these cases leads to a duplicated namespace, see for example Category:Electric power transmission systems in Asia.
The Testcases show how the current technique also produces an artifact on non-category namespaces, which however isn't all too relevant, as the template is only expected to be used in the Category namespace. The same testcases however also show that my improved version corrects the overall problem. PanchoS (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Synced. The change looks good. (I wonder if it makes sense to check the namespace of the page, and if we're not on a category, we return a different message. That might potentially happen at ((Cfd all))) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Cfd which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so I need help with listing two categories I want to nominate for re-naming. They are Category:DuMont News & Category:DuMont Sports. I want to nominate those two for re-naming because the DuMont Television Network never actually had news or sports divisions, even though it did broadcast news & sports programming. Now, I've read the instructions on the template page for how to post the notification for nominating similar categories for re-naming, but I'm not sure I completely understand how to do the notification for two similar categories. If someone could show me the wording that needs to be used for nominating two similar categories, I'd really appreciate it. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request to Cfr full has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The header of a CfD discussion always includes "Category:", but I sometimes forget to put that namespace in the link (especially because the target parameter does not require you to put in the namespace). This change I made to the sandbox adds the "Category:" for you if you forget it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done I personally, make plenty of CfD nominations whose header does not include the word category, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 3#Wikipedians interested in webcomics * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, right.. Nevermind then. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]