This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcategories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories
I just want to call out the possibility for miscategorization based on my experience: while the1995 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 exampleRobert Williams Buchanan, the Scottish poet is onList 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)[reply]
WP:CFDS says "If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins whoprocess 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)[reply]
I understand there are benefits to mass nominating categories for speedy renaming or deletion atWikipedia: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 aWP: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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}}.Qwerfjkltalk16:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Qwerfjkltalk15:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fixed, you should now be able to edit all sections below "Admin instructions", including "Current requests", freely, even when the page is transcluded intoWP:CFD :)FaviFake (talk)13:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I agree it's not perfect, but Current requests isn't clear either becauseall 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)[reply]
Speedy criterionWP: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 theX by Y format that contain only one subcategory.Mclay1 (talk)23:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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 anX 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)[reply]
Today, I asked the bot to moveCategory:Persigo Gianyar players toCategory:Persegi Bali F.C. players following the request at CFDS which was unopposed for 48h. As far as I see, the bot created the redirect at the former location (which I since then deleted, hoping there was an edit history there - there was none), but did not move it to the destination. Now I am not sure where the edit history is and how I can locate it. An admin help would be appreciated, non-admins can not see deleted edits which are probably essential for resolving the issue. Thanks.Ymblanter (talk)10:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been happening since I added some items yesterday afternoon, not sure why every entry is being treated as a reply now. Reviewed my entries (here andhere) and don't see anything out of the ordinary.WinstonDewey (talk)16:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It varies, and it depends on how complex the implementation of the result is. If it's a simple deletion or rename and the closer is an admin who uses a semi-automated tool to close the discussion, it can happen fairly quickly after the close, because it's usally added to a list for a bot. If a non-admin closes the discussion, it needs to be listed on a special page for an admin to take care of whenever they can. If the implementation requires manual work, sometimes that can get kicked down the road for a little while before it's eventually done. When things take an unexpected amount of time, I've found that it's usually because someone has made a mistake in how they've closed the discussion or because there's a formatting error in the listing for the bot.Mclay1 (talk)08:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Important:Do not depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD. If you modify the population of a category, or in other ways edit the category while it is subject to a CfD discussion, note that you did so in the CfD (for transparency), and be prepared to revert your edits upon community request. Such editing can hamper other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.
Important:Do not depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD,unless there is an urgent reason for it. If you modify the population of a category, or in other ways edit the category whileor just before it is subject to a CfD discussion, note that you did so in the CfD (for transparency), and be prepared to revert your edits upon community request. Such editing can hamper other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.Urgent reasons for depopulating are for example vandalism andWP:BLP violations.
Important:In general, do not depopulate a category when nominating it for CfD. If, during (or just prior to) the discussion, you modify the population of a category, or in other ways edit the category while it is subject to a CfD discussion, note that you did so in the CfD (for transparency), and be prepared to revert your edits upon community request. Such editing can hamper other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.
Seems completely unnecessary, we have only one editor who misinterprets this even after repeated explanations. And even then his statements are about a different scenario, claiming that you may not remove a BLP violation from a cat if that would depopulate it, even if wasn't already at CfD. Policy text or guidance text shouldn't be made more and more lengthy to accommodate each and every situation, we are not writing law but guides to be applied with common sense.No type of discussion requires one to keep BLP violations or vandalism around. Not CfD, not AfD, not MfD.Fram (talk)08:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think that's a good clarification. While some editors may feel rules are obvious, they're not to many other users, and there's no usenot clarifying something. In particular, there are many users (such as myself) who are very active in categorisation but not so much in BLP and so aren't intimately familiar with the rules on the latter. Reading the original text, I would have assumed the rule to not depopulate a category took precedence, since it is written emphatically and with not exceptions. Additionally, because there's no exceptions, the second sentence contradicts the first, making it confusing. In the new text, it's clear that there are some exceptions.Mclay1 (talk)08:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a much needed clarification. If there are acceptable reasons to not follow a rule it is best to spell them out clearly and make it obvious when people can do things. We would be best off not having a rule that says to do things one way and just expect people to know intuitively that there are exceptions. If there are exceptions we should spell them out clearly.John Pack Lambert (talk)11:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. CfD, like all discussions on Wikipedia, are collaborations. And with that in mind, categories often get modified, purged, updated, etc., during the CFD discussion. Compare this to how articles get developed during an AFD. What we're trying to avoid in this text are those who completely overhaul or empty a category, which prevents informed discussion. That said, I agree that the text could be clearer to explain essentially what I just noted. -jc3713:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the proposed alt text. Happy to discuss further editing, such as if we need to explicitly note standard policy exceptions, like blp. -jc3700:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think those alt changes are a good alternative, but I think the final sentence of the original is an important clarification, because whether or not BLP violations should be removed immediately or left in to illustrate the point in the CfD is what led to this discussion.Mclay1 (talk)14:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the discussion was specifically on a 1 article Egyptian category in a case where an actor had played a role that had a given trait but there was no statement in the article the actor had that trait. I stated this case was an example of why we really would be better off not having 1 article categories at all, at least in cases where they were likely to contain BLPs.John Pack Lambert (talk)14:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recently,Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 22#Croats and Serbs was closed as no consensus. In my opinion, the explanations in favor of the current obfuscated practice were rather incoherent, and I'd still like to see this inconsistency with the main article space attended to. There is no single parent category to nominate, however. What would be the best forum instead? A mass CFD for all affected categories? Village pump RFC? --Joy (talk)13:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a "violation".WP:C2D doesn't say category nameshave to match article names. Outside of a few edge cases, such as the discussion you linked, the naming for articles and categories on nationalities and ethnicities is fairly consistent. Articles such asGermans are about the group of people, whereas the categoryCategory:German people is a set category for articles about people. While the category may link to the article as the "main article" for the category, the category is not a topic category about the same topic as the article. The difficulty arises when we try to distinguish between nationality and ethnicity, but for the most part, we categorise people by nationality not ethnicity.Mclay1 (talk)06:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not even arguing against using the primary redirect in the category names. I'm arguing against giving extrameaning to the fact we'd be doing that.
In other words, if we want to have this extra meaning in category splits - some being for individual biographies and some for more general topics - this needs to be indicated in plain English, not by playing some sort of a semantics game with the readers. --Joy (talk)08:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think biography categories should have a banner at the top indicating that that's what they're for. Topic categories can be explained with some text at the top and a note about adding people to the people subcategory. There will be some cases where the current categorisation isn't organised as best as it should be, and topics and people are mixed together.Mclay1 (talk)14:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but trying to explain confusing terminology doesn't fix the confusing category labels in the footers of the articles themselves.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking:Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.
Wikipedia:Readers first:Try to avoid jargon – but where it is particularly relevant or where it is necessary, explain all jargon clearly on the article page – a link to another article is not enough.
If an article uses the terms Fooians and Fooian people interchangeably, linking categories about these shouldn't deviate from that, requiring the readers to keep checking for redefined terms. --Joy (talk)14:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's an elegant solution available, actually. "German people" should mean "the German people"whatever that is—don't look at me; I'm an individualist personally, whereas a category for articles about individual Germans should becategory:German persons. In general we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person"; "people" can sometimes be used as a plural for "person" but it has other baggage as well, as is rather sharply illustrated in this conversation. I don't expect this will fly; folks will say it's too legalistic or too American or something, But itwould neatly solve the problem. --Trovatore (talk)19:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a more general peeve of mine, really. I think we should use "persons" as the plural of "person" in all Wikipedia-internal contexts and most internal-adjacent contexts like this one. It seems to be a bit of a mix. For exampleWikipedia:Biographies of living persons is correctly named, but then it has a section talking about "transgender people". --Trovatore (talk)21:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atTemplate talk:Cfr § how to modify the call to cfr full after a merge. --Joy (talk)09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, you should now be able to edit all sections below "Admin instructions", including "Current requests", freely, even when the page is transcluded intoWP:CFD :)FaviFake (talk)13:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Important:Do not depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD. If you modify the population of a category, or in other ways edit the category while it is subject to a CfD discussion, note that you did so in the CfD (for transparency), and be prepared to revert your edits upon community request. Such editing can hamper other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.
