Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

See also: WT:CFD/W, WT:CAT, and WT:CATP

See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User and WT:CFD/W/M

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	17	100	117
TfD	0	0	4	39	43
MfD	0	0	10	30	40
FfD	0	0	6	8	14
RfD	0	0	0	57	57
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

events in San Diego

Recently, JJMC89 bot III (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) went about removing Category:events in San Diego and replacing it with Category:organized events in San Diego saying only per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Nothing at that page explained this change. Looking at the bot's edits, it also seems that it changed this for a lot of other "events in [place]" categories, changing them to "organized events in [place]".

I just want to call out the possibility for miscategorization based on my experience: while the 1995 San Diego tank rampage certainly was an 'event in San Diego', it definitely wasn't an 'organized event in San Diego', despite this recent automated recategorization. (I have, of course, already removed the latter category.)

I haven't the experience with categorization discussions (speedy or not), nor with bots and their machinations, to know if this is widespread or not, but I though it prudent to bring to somebody's attention. My apologies if I needn't've. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fourthords, to my understanding this is standard practice. @Marcocapelle tagged the category at Category:Organized events in San Diego (Diff ~1301355778) and added it to the speedy page at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy (Diff ~1301353870). It was then removed after then appropriate time had passed with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy (Diff ~1301996304), and the bot then processed it accordingly. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion that determined that all events categories should be changed to organised events. Anything that doesn't fit the new name should be removed. Mclay1 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

possible CfD?

I haven't created a CfD before and wanted to ask first how to proceed.

Have a look at Category_talk:Articles_needing_additional_images#Category name and, if you would be so kind, tell me how you would proceed in this case. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

How to contest a move?

Hi. Category:Lists of people by populated place in England was moved to Category:Lists of English people by populated place. I can't seem to see the discussion on why it was moved but it seems to be an error. The new category title is about English people per place, but if you look at the Category, it contains lists of people from English towns and cities not individuals. And when you drill down into those lists, not everone on these lists are English. For example Robert Williams Buchanan, the Scottish poet is on List of people from Southend-on-Sea, as he lived and died there but was born in Scotland. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Davidstewartharvey Category:Lists of people by populated place in England was moved after a speedy nomination of a set of categories here by Kaffet i halsen. The reason was "C2C: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 15#Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 24#People by region subcategories."

WP:CFDS says "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." TSventon (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am probably the only one right now. I would advise to start a full discussion with the above arguments. Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

I understand there are benefits to mass nominating categories for speedy renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, but it's hard to sort through everything in 48 hours when there are several mass nominations of dozens of categories being made at essentially the same time. While the creator of the category is probably being notified, it might be wise to also notify relevant WikiProjects to seek feedback from them. The size and pace of the nominations have a WP:MEATBOT feel to them (at least it seems that way to me) even if they're being made with the best intentions. How to oppose a nomination is also confusing when challenging one page of several dozen pages being nominated at the same time. There doesn't seem to be much guidance regarding mass nominations at the top of the "Speedy" page; so, perhaps such a thing should be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed requests is pretty hard to navigate given that its one large thread dealing with multiple speedy rename/deletion requests. I just had a post mistakenly deleted by another user using a tool/script trying to simultaneously the same page by adding a new mass nomination. This really isn't a good thing per WP:TPO, and it's something that shouldn't happen, even unintentionally. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Opposing speedy moves after CfD

I've noticed a recurring thing where a category will be renamed at CfD, but its subcategories are left even though they should have been renamed at the same time. Then when the subcategories are nominated for speedy renaming, the renaming is opposed by someone who didn't like the original move. Is there a process for dealing with this? Why is one person able to unilterally prevent a CfD result from being fulfilled, thus forcing another discussion about the same thing? If they want to overturn the previous consensus, they can start a new CfD after the appropriate amount of time, but surely the result of the original decision should be completed first. Mclay1 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Mclay1, the correct thing to do is to list the subcategories at the original nomination, so they are all renamed together. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But not everyone does that. And also sometimes there are so many subcategories that only the higher-level categories are nominated. Mclay1 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mclay1, nevertheless, that is the easiest way to prevent this. You do not need to be the nominator to correct an improper nomination. And also sometimes there are so many subcategories that only the higher-level categories are nominated. Even so, all subcategories should be at least tagged for the nomination, and listed with {{cot}} / {{cob}}. Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working unprotected

Note that the protection level of the above page has been reduced from admin to extended confirmed (not by me). The idea is that extended confirmed users can help to clean it up. If you want to help and do not know how just ask here, there are a few users who could give advise. Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the protection level was reduced to allow for extended confirmed users to clean it up, but presumably this would also allow non-admins to implement CfD nominations? With the potential for mass vandalism I'm surprised it was decreased. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping Favonian who actually changed the protection. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

– Favonian (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the full protection. Favonian, Zackmann08, you're on the wrong side of Chesterton's fence and meddling in a area you clearly don't know what you are doing in. See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Archive_2#Protection_of_WP:CFD/W,_take_3 for the previous time this doomed perennial proposal was tried.

On top of that, the actual effect of this would be to disable JJMC89 bot III entirely (per Line 788 of the bot's source code). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I’ll focus my efforts elsewhere. — Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Cfr § how to modify the call to cfr full after a merge

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cfr § how to modify the call to cfr full after a merge. -- Joy (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Layout

Ymblanter Per BRD, could you kindly elaborate on why you disliked the layout change? FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You added several clicks to my workflow:

You removed the main header, and now I can not open the section from which I need to move the categories for processing;

You moved the link to Categories for discussion/Working, where I am expected to move them, into a collapsed section.

Once both have been rectified, I am fine. Not sure about other users though. Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. Most of my improvements were to the text of the page, so I'll leave the rest as-is. FaviFake (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not have any issues with the text, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

My issue with the new layout is that some of the headings are no longer editable, which makes it harder to just edit the Current Requests and move stuff from unopposed to one of the other headings. You now have to edit the whole page. Mclay1 (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed, you should now be able to edit all sections below "Admin instructions", including "Current requests", freely, even when the page is transcluded into WP:CFD :) FaviFake (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• @FaviFake: "unopposed requests" is confusing, because the nominations are listed to give editors the opportunity to oppose in this section. I am open to alternatives, but if there isn't anything better then let's go back to Current requests. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree it's not perfect, but Current requests isn't clear either because all requests, even the opposed ones, are current (as in, open for more comments). Does anyone have a better idea for distinguishing all open requests from new, "opposable" requests? Maybe "new requests"? FaviFake (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  • @FaviFake: "New requests" would be fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

     Done FaviFake (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I restored the reminder to add Template:Cfr-speedy to all nominated categories. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't mean to remove it, it must've been lost in the copypasting :) FaviFake (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's all good! Woko Sapien (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

How to rename Category:Wikipedia glossaries?

Category:Glossaries is defined as for published glossaries, while its subcategory Category:Wikipedia glossaries is for stuff like Glossary of cricket terms. I don't think the current names, in particular, "Wikipedia glossaries", are good. We don't have "Wikipedia lists" or such; the name implies it's a glossary of Wikipedia namespace terms, which is not the case (Wikipedia:Glossary is under Category:Wikipedia directories). Any thoughts on how to clen up this mess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

C2F proposal

Speedy criterion WP:C2F currently applies when "the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file" and results in an upmerge to the relevant parent categories. Should this criterion be expanded to any category that contains only one page or subcategory (providing the nominator has checked to see if it can be further populated)? There are frequent CfD discussions to upmerge categories that contain only one article or subcategory, and these are generally uncontroversial. It feels like a basic clean-up process that could be moved to speedy to save time and effort. Alternatively, if not any category containing only one child, then perhaps just container categories in the X by Y format that contain only one subcategory. Mclay1 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging regular contributors to try to get a conversation started: @Johnpacklambert, @Marcocapelle, @WikiCleanerMan, @Ymblanter, @Woko Sapien, @Place Clichy, @OpalYosutebito, @1857a, @Kaffet i halsen, @John of Reading, @Wikihistorian, @Gonnym, @Smasongarrison, @Pppery. Feel free to ignore if you don't care, and I won't ping you again. (If I missed anyone, it wasn't deliberate.) We've altered and added speedy critera in the past, but it seems harder to discuss now that there's no dedicated talk page for it. Mclay1 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• I like this proposal. Although I think we need some description of what adequate checking is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion/Archive_92#c-Pppery-20250930023700-BodhiHarp-20250930022800. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

  I like the idea, but I'll have to oppose per Pppery's rationale :( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

  Agree that the idea has merit, but it sounds like this has already been litigated. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Pppery, fair enough then that on rare occasions we keep categories with one article. What about categories with only one subcategory? Surely that's not helpful as that subcategory can just be directly in the parents of its parent. And surely it's never helpful to have an X by Y category that has only one subcategory. For example, "Category:Cats by village" if "Category:Cats in Smallville" were the only subcategory (and there were no others that could be added to populate). There would be no prejudice against recreating the categories if more contents became available. I think discussing this is sufficiently different from that previous discussion to not defer to that outcome (which had minimal participation anyway). Mclay1 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  No objection to that in principle, but not really involved enough with that area to support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)