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	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	66	0	66
TfD	0	0	25	0	25
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	1	13	0	14
RfD	0	0	32	0	32
AfD	0	0	3	0	3

Category:Inmates of Silivri Prison

Despite the fact that the "Silivri Prison" is still considered the de facto name for this penitentiary by the general public, Turkish Ministry of Justice changed its name to Marmara Prison in 2022. I think the category needs to be renamed to "Inmates of Marmara Prison" with an updated description to reflect this change. BactrianCamelCase (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Word usage for creatures

Ok, so we've been doing this piecemeal, and I find that I've even been contradicting myself in usage (lol). I think we need to standardize these to make this simpler and clearer, and honestly, so we don't constantly have repeat nominations of these.

So here's my suggestion on how to stadardize usage of: fiction/fictional; folklore/folkloric; legend/legendary; myth/mythology/mythological.

a.) fiction

These creatures are elements within a work of fiction.

The adjective "fictional" describes the creature, not the work. So the article rabbit would not be in Category:Fictional creatures in animation. But Bugs Bunny might. (Or more likely, in a subcat.)

So, do not use "creatures in fiction". That could be any creature, not just fictional (not real) creatures. That usage of "...in fiction" should typically only be used with an adjective, such as genres, like "fantasy fiction", or crime fiction".

Usage: fictional [adjective] creatures [in [work of fiction]/[type of fiction]/folklore/mythology] example: Category:fictional sea creatures in The Little Mermaid

To illustrate the difference, a category called: Category:Sea creatures in The Little Mermaid could include articles such as flounder or crab, while the example above might instead have Sebastian (The Little Mermaid).

b.) folklore

folklore describes the work type (instead of fiction). It does not describe the creature. Usage: [adjective] creatures in [adjective] folklore example: Category:Sea creatures in African folklore

"folkloric" should never be used.

c.) legend

legend could describe a story, but for our usage all stories of legend are folklore, and so all such creatures should be merged in that direction (per overlapcat). Usage is therefore that of b, above.

That said, the word legendary is a useful adjective to differentiate/disambiguate legendary creatures from fictional ones or from real ones.

Usage: Legendary [adjective] creatures [in [work of fiction]/[type of fiction]/folklore/mythology]

example: Category: Legendary sea creatures in Greek mythology

And just like "fictional" (noted above), "legendary" describes the creature, not the story.

d.) mythology We need to be careful about mythology, because in some sources it is synonymous with legend/folklore, and in some sources, it is synonymous with religion. Also, in general it is a group of (semi-related) stories, rather than a stand-alone story.

And not all creatures of folklore/legend are creatures from mythology. For example, Natural History (Pliny) lists creatures that could be considered folklore/legendary, but would not be considered mythological. This is an important distiction to remember.

So for all of these reasons, for usage of "mythology", we need to be strict. The source needs to state that the creature in question is from an established mythology, not merely "from myth" or legend or folklore of the region. We shouldn't use "myth", as that is ambiguous as to whether it means legend or part of a mythology.

I welome everyone's thoughts on all of this. - jc37 12:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Template useage bouncing off XFDcloser

Not sure if this is more appropritate here or at the tool talk page, but I've noticed that nominations using the {{lc}} template for the category name in them are producing an error when attempting to relist or close them using XFDcloser, where it's claiming Edit is somehow part of the nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I would say XFDCloser's talk page would be more appropriate. But I wouldn't count on it getting fixed any time soon. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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)