Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 46 90 43 179
TfD 0 0 0 0 27 27
MfD 0 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 7 1 7 36 20 71
AfD 0 0 0 0 64 64

Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types in accordance with the guidelines for categorization, category naming and stub articles.

For detailed instructions about using CfD, see "How to use CfD" below. Briefly, nominations are handled through one of two processes:

  1. Speedy renaming and merging, for uncontroversial proposals that meet specified criteria—see "Speedy renaming and merging" below.
  2. Full discussion, for all other proposals. Discussions typically remain open 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.

Scope

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.

Current discussions


Discussions awaiting closure

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 46 90 43 179
TfD 0 0 0 0 27 27
MfD 0 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 7 1 7 36 20 71
AfD 0 0 0 0 64 64

See also the list of individual discussions awaiting closure here and the list of full open discussions awaiting closure here.


How to use CfD

Nomination procedure

Twinkle

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, or if you prefer not to use Twinkle, follow the manual steps below.

Manual nominations

I
Preliminary steps.

Before nominating a category:

In the following special cases:

For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

II
Edit the category.

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.

Otherwise, if nominating a single category:
If nominating a group of related categories, use a bundled nomination:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:cfd|CfD section name}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:cfm|Other category|CfD section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:cfr|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|CfD section name}}
  • For converting the category into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|CfD section name}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
Alternatively, leave a message at User talk:DannyS712 requesting that a bot tag the categories for you.
  • 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|2020 September 27|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
  • For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.
III
Create the CFD section.

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 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:

  • Read and understand guidance for creating stub types and stub type naming conventions.
  • Review the list of existing stub types—be advised, this list may not be comprehensive.
  • If you wish to:
    • Create a new stub type—follow the procedure for proposing new stub types.
    • Delete, merge or rename a stub category only, without deleting or renaming the associated stub template—follow the instructions above this section.
    • Delete or rename a stub template—continue to section II.
II
Edit the template.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.

  • For deletion, use {{subst:sfd-t|Section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:sfr-t|Proposed name|Section name}}
  • Please include "SFD" or "SFR" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • Consider notifying the template's creator on their talk page. To find the contributor, check the page history of the stub template.
III
Create the CFD section.

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-notify|Category name|2020 September 27|CfD section name}} ~~~~ or write a personalized message.

Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

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.

Closing procedure

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.

Redirecting categories

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 relationsCategory: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.

A list of redirected categories is available at Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

Speedy renaming and merging

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.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

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 can also be processed instantly 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 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 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.

Speedy criteria

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).
  • Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

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: Consistency with main article's name

  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • 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 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.
  • This criterion is also used to add a disambiguator to a category name, even when the main article is not the primary topic of its name, but no other topics are likely to have an eponymous category

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.

C2F: One eponymous article

  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list 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:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. 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.

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

  • 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

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 ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.) If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:

*REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

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 01:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC). Currently, there are 363 open requests (refresh).


Current requests

Opposed requests

Title page of A Son of the People, by Baronness Orczy.
  • Category:Books by Baroness Emma Orczy to – C2D per Emma Orczy Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose this one. This author is really very famous under the name of Baroness Orczy (sample cover on the right). While Baroness is probably useless and misplaced in the title of her biographical article, per our conventions on honorifics, it is very useful in anything related to her literary work. Place Clichy (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    However, note that she is never referred to as Baroness Emma Orczy, but just as Baroness Orczy. The hybrid title you want to keep it at is simply inaccurate. There would certainly be a case for moving the article to Baroness Orczy per WP:NCPEER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    Not exactly. NCPEER writes that Baroness should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without, which can be argued to be the case here. I don't really see a rationale to remove the first name. There are also other baronesses Orczy, starting probably with the writer's mother. The example given at WP:NCPEER is Lord Frederick Cavendish, not Lord Cavendish. What we have here is a title plus a name, not exactly a pen name or pseudonym. Place Clichy (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    I was referring to the exception: When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron. She is unquestionably the best-known Baroness Orczy and is published under the name Baroness Orczy, without any mention of her first name. Normally I would agree that full names should be used, but she's clearly one of the few exceptions a la Byron and Tennyson. Lord Frederick Cavendish isn't referred to as Lord Cavendish because he wasn't. Younger sons of dukes always take the title before the first name, not the surname. But he is actually being used as an example of why he shouldn't be referred to as Frederick Cavendish, not why he shouldn't be referred to as Lord Cavendish. Completely different situation from Orczy, who was unquestionably commonly known as Baroness Orczy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    Agree - the article needs moving. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    She was a Hungarian baroness that lived most of her life in Britain, so usual conventions about British titles (and even continental titles) may not apply, as the examples of Lord Byron and Lord Tennyson. She probably wouldn't be Lady Orczy or Emma, Lady Orczy. More importantly, while she (or her editor) undeniably chose to write Baroness Orczy on the cover of her books (perhaps a catchy name for the kind of easy-selling good-feeling cheap literature she produced), I doubt that she would have been known as such socially. To compare again with "Lord Byron", I don't think that this is how he called himself on the cover of his books. Not being found of unnecessary honorifics, I would favour keeping the article at Emma Orczy but having the category about her work at either Books by Baroness Emma Orczy or Books by Baroness Orczy. Anyway this should be discussed on the article talk page and CfD rather than here (I suggest copying this discussion there). Place Clichy (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit, in art these are proper names subjects, which need the caps. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT Category:Years of the 18th century in Egypt to – C2C per Category:18th century in Ottoman Egypt, which was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_31#Category:17th_century_in_Egypt. If this set is approved for speedy processing then a mass nomination will follow for 19th century. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Strong oppose. @Fayenatic: That was a bad CFD decision in substance. Rebranding the chronology categories for a region on the basis of which coloniser was in control at the time adds no value for navigation (which is the main point of categories), and actively impedes navigation by removing consistency. The adjective "Ottoman" adds precisely nothing of navigational benefit, and fails WP:CONCISE. If this approach was followed through, we would have a series of different titles for the Egyptian chronology categories, for each of the successive colonial regimes, and then probably a series of titles for the various indigenous regimes which have followed. That complexity helps neither readers nor editors. We have a head article "Egypt" covering all these eras, and that title is best for navigation.
        Procedurally, that CFD was fundamentally flawed. It should have tagged and listed all the categories involved, which would have drawn the attention of more editors to the the folly which was being proposed. I appreciate that Fayenatic is trying to clean up after that flawed close of a flawed nomination ... but the unintended effect of using speedy to followup a flawed nomination is a form of stealthy bypasss of the consensus-forming process of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @BrownHairedGirl: just for info, I had not joined in this Ottoman Egypt discussion after earlier in vain having tried to change Category:Ottoman Syria which is used for the entire Levant, while no such polity in the entire Levant existed for most of the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Just for info - "Egypt" is a colonial name for the Nile Delta province imposed by occupant Roman Empire; the original naming was probably MSR in Ancient Egyptian language, though by the time of Roman occupation it had in fact become a Hellinistic dynasty named Ptolemaïkḕ basileía. Most modern Egyptian population is made of Arab Muslim invaders coming during Arab conquests from nearby Arabia (this is preserved in the official name of Egypt - Arab Republic of Egypt), while minority Copts are descended from Byzantine Christians who themselves descend from colonizing population from earlier era.GreyShark (dibra) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • @Greyshark09: Most of that has no relevance that has to this discussion. Howver, the fact that you agree that the term "Egypt" has been in use from Roman times makes your rebranding nomination rather silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • It was Provincia Aegyptus, which has almost nothing to do with modern Arab Republic of Egypt, except partial territorial overlap (very partial). Roman Aegyprus categories were recently renamed to differentiate from Arab Republic of Egypt due to anachronism - see relevant discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
              • @Greyshark09: almost nothing to do with modern Arab Republic of Egypt ... except that per the lead of , it "encompassed most of modern-day Egypt except for the Sinai Peninsula". Your obssession with relabelling at regime change serves on purpose other than to disrupt category navigation, and I think it's time to revisit the damage which you have done by your sneaky CFDs which don't even list the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Actually, nothing. Different population, different culture and language, different ruling class, different ethnic groups, different everything. Even the name "Egypt" for Jamahuriyyat Mizr al-Arabiya is Western, not used by current country's population and government. It is only your imagination connects Ancient MSR, Roman Aegyptus, Ottoman province of Mizr and modern Jamahuriyyat Mizr al-Arabiya into some continuous fiction. Same way you can refer to Arab Republic of Iraq as continuation of Sumer and Akkad and Canada as continuation of the Iroquese Federation.GreyShark (dibra) 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with Oppose arguments. It is all so much simpler to use "Egypt" all along. Place Clichy (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Although BrownHairedGirl says category navigation will be impeded, it's not impeded much, since the category header templates use {{navseasoncats}} which can bridge changes in name where redirects are set up. As well as Ottoman, the history of Egypt has the periods of Roman and Byzantine Egypt, see Category:Centuries in Egypt. I have no axe to grind here, and was (as BHG acknowledges) trying to resolve inconsistencies; but Wikipedia currently has plenty of other examples of chronologies using the colonial name, e.g. the Portuguese period in Category:Decades in Mozambique (to cite another one that currently needs sorting out). – Fayenatic London 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • REDIRECT Category:1798 in Egypt to
    • REDIRECT Category:1799 in Egypt to
    • REDIRECT Category:1800 in Egypt to
    • REDIRECT Category:1790s in Egypt to
    • REDIRECT Category:18th-century Egyptian people to (like Category:16th-century people of Ottoman Egypt)
    • REDIRECT Category:17th-century Egyptian people to
  • Category:Kiev Oblast to Category:Kyiv Oblast – C2D: per requested move on Talk:Kyiv and it applies to every subcategory, specifically Starzoner(talk) 12:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose this one per Kiev Oblast. Place Clichy (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support  Also, Place Clichy has dropped their opposition over there and that article has now been moved to Kyiv Oblast. It would be nice if they’d confirm or deny their opposition here. —Michael Z. 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Anyway, this discussion is moot now that the categories have been nominated to CfD. The topic is controversial enough to benefit from a full discussion, even though the discussion should be quite straightforward for many (but not all) categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @Place Clichy: note that this particular category is not on CfD (yet). Are you withdrawing your oppose against speedy renaming this category per C2D? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Related to various Kyivan governorates of the Russian Empire, Ukrainian People’s Republic, and Soviet Ukraine

Related to Kyiv Oblast

On hold pending other discussion

Moved to full discussion

  • Category:Pride parades in Poland to  – C2D: See equality marches in Poland, in Poland these events are called "equality marches" in order to emphasize that the organizers want equal rights. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose - Alignment with the rest of the category tree (and common usage) should override consistency with the article name in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    The equality marches in Poland are not commonly called "pride parades", even in English language sources. That is simply incorrect. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Black Falcon, I agree with @buidhe: this category should use the actual name used in Poland. So it's a valid C2D nomination, with a valid valid C2C-based objection. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Peacebuilding would not work here because it's an "-ing" word - it's about more synthetic (WP:RS) overviews of processes, not about particular concrete elements of them. The present elements of Category:Peacebuilding are wider topics than individual mechanisms. Many of the specific elements (mechanisms) are components both to solve existing conflicts and to prevent conflicts from occurring or recurring: e.g. arms embargoes and confidence-building measures. "War ending" is also an -ing expression, with the same problem. I don't see an objection in principle of having two sub-categories of Category:peace mechanism or , but it seems a bit premature to me, and I think the focus on individual things/pieces - mechanisms - will reduce the number of fuzzy categorisations. Better wait until we have more contributions/contributors before sub-categorising. Boud (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: "Vetus Latina" is definetly more precise than "Old Latin". Those articles relate to manuscripts of the Vetus Latina, not any Latin manuscripts of old times. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that "old" is confusing, but in full discussion I think I might propose renaming to and adding Category:Vulgate manuscripts as a subcategory to it. The fact that they are written in Latin is the defining characteristic, not the fact that they are part of a set called Vetus Latina. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: "Vetus Latina" designates the translations made from the Septuagint and the New Testament into Latin, mainly before the 4th century; see its article. The Vulgate is the 4th-century translations in Latin of the Hebrew Old Testament, the New Testament, and of some books from the Septuagint; those translations were mainly done by Jerome. Therefore, it is needed to distinguish between the Vetus Latina (a specific set of translations), the Vulgate (another set of specific translations), and other Latin manuscripts, and this is one of the the purposes of my renaming proposal. Veverve (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The distinction with Vulgate will still exist with Vulgate as a subcat of Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I add that the category is currently called "Old Latin" because "Old Latin" translates "Vetus Latina". You can check for yourself: all the manuscripts within this category are Vetus Latina texts. Veverve (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: the confusion also stems from the fact "Vetus Latina" is the common name for those translations, whereas "Old Latin" is condusing. Moreover, there would be no point in putting all the Vetus Latin New Testament manuscript in a new, broader, less precise category. Veverve (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Razakar to  – C2D: per head article Razakar (Pakistan). The bare title Razakar is about the concept (an Arabic word which means volunteer), but Razakar (Pakistan) is a specific force which operated in East Pakistan. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I believe this should be . – Fayenatic London 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic, the category currently structured as a topic category, so no plural needed. Maybe it should become a combined set/topic category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Not sure I understand this re WP:TOPICCAT. In what way is it "structured as a topic category", other than its name being singular rather than plural? How would it "become" a combined one – simply by renaming as I have suggested? – Fayenatic London 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Fayenatic: It's set up as a WP:TOPICCAT for the organisation called Razakar (Pakistan). If it was a set category, it would have people categories as patents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see – thank you. But I disagree that the organisation was called Razakar (Pakistan), even though that is its main article; in the article, the organisation is referred to either as "Razakars" or as "Razakar force". Moreover, I think the category is already functioning also as a set category. (I would probably move the article as well.) – Fayenatic London 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
              • @Fayenatic, I have moved this to the opposed section, because I think it has moved beyond the type of straightforward issue which can be handled as a speedy, so we need a full discussion to consider it. I'll leave it you make that full nomination, so that you can make the nominator's case upfront. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ready for deletion

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.

Empty categories awaiting deletion

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.)