Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

XFD backlog
  May Jun Jul Aug TOTAL
CfD 0 15 40 21 76
TfD 0 0 0 16 16
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

Empty Cats & CfDs[edit]

I patrol Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and tag empty categories to sit for 7 days before they are deleted (only if they remain empty). Daily I seem to come across categories that have been emptied after a CfD has been closed but the category has not been deleted and it is sometimes a couple of days (or weeks) since the CfD has closed. Will a bot eventually delete the cats or can I go ahead and do so? I don't delete a category that is part of a CfD even if it has been closed.

I guess I'm leaving this note to verify that I can go ahead and delete categories in a closed CfD instead of waiting for the bot to get to it. I have at times left a note to the CfD closer to let them know that the category still exists. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I'm talking about Category:Years in literature, Category:Years in webcomics and Category:Biota. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Some should be deleted, but others should be {{category redirect}}s. (I'll leave it to the admins with more experience here to explain when each is preferred.) If the category is listed on WP:CFD/W (or a subpage), then the admin who listed it should be taking care cleaning up backlinks then deleting or redirecting. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:Category redirects that should be kept is a recent essay (by me) that addresses the above.
Sometimes a category is tagged and listed for deletion, which may take time if templates have to be changed first. Other times, all the contents of a category are nominated but the parent is overlooked in the nomination. It can be tagged as empty, or an admin may consider that it's a clear enough case to delete as housekeeping WP:G6, in which case the log entry should link to the related CFD. – Fayenatic London 07:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The categories you list contain a large amount of incoming backlinks, I was not deleting them for this reason. I was not able to quickly figure out where these links come from and how they should be fixed (recently we have enough stuff at CFDW to deal with), but if someone else could fix this, it would be great.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that Category:Years in literature had many links to other-language Wikipedias, and the Wikidata item could not be instantly merged to the one for Category:Literature by year as there were multiple clashes e.g. in Arabic and Farsi Wikipedias. I would therefore have kept that redirect rather than deleted it, in order to facilitate resolution of the mess outside en-wiki. – Fayenatic London 06:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
We can still restore the redirect and include it into the Wikidata item.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Bot to fix double category redirects[edit]

I am seeking approval for a bot to bypass double category redirects. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 17. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Category re-creations[edit]

It recently came to my attention that Category:Deaths from heart failure and Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction had been re-created against consensus of relevant discussions, and that [[:Category:Deaths from heart-related cause, a grammatically deficient copy of Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths (deleted in this discussion), had also been created. I've just (abv?)used Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to clear out and re-delete the categories per speedy deletion criterion G4, protected the first two to prevent good-faith re-creations, and made sure that all the relevant subcategories of the latter category were still properly categorised. Pinging @Paulinho28 and Anasuya.D: as the creators of both these categories, and @Marcocapelle: who was a strong advocate for their deletion. I hope this is all (relatively) OK. Graham87 17:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging @Gianluigi02:, the user whose edit made me aware of these categories. Graham87 17:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
No objection on the G4s temselves. As one of the bot operators, I'd prefer that CFDW not be used to G4 delete categories since G4 does not get mentioned in the deletion logs. The bot operators are responsible for all bot actions, and without this edit summary (or this discussion), there would be nothing indicating that they are G4 deletions. Deleting the category yourself then listing at CFDW should still result in the category being emptied. IMO, that should be OK. Alternatively, I can manually start the bot (or use Cat-a-lot) with a custom summary on request. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I was thinking of deleting the category myself but I didn't know if that would cause problems with bots or maybe people who track red-link categories. Good to know that it would work if need be. Graham87 06:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What is containerization?[edit]

Could someone explain or refer me to an explanation of what containerization is? A search in Help found nothing. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I had the same question as deisenbe, and found their question on one of subpages of /Log, and moved it here. The "Nomination procedure" section mentions "containerization" three times, but it is indeed not explained. Other category actions, like renaming, merging, or deletion seem self-explanatory. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I stumbled on this: Wikipedia:Container category. deisenbe (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added wikilink to the first mention of containerization. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Attempt to explain what is "containerization". —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken re-inserting incorret categories, Secular critics vs critics[edit]

Proposal for C2F speedy deletion process[edit]

Based on User:Oculi's comment in this discussion, here is a suggestion for an additional criterion for speedy deletion. I have advertised this proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, please feel free to advertise it anywhere else where you think it is appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


This criterion applies if the content of the category consists of an eponymous article only, 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.
  • Seems OK by me (note: I added a word). The outcome should be merger to all applicable parents. That way, it fits under WP:C2. Otherwise, if it was strictly for deletion, it would belong as an extension to WP:C1.
We would need to decide the process and whether there is a delay. Probably the same 7-day delay should apply as C1. It would need a new template similar to {{db-c1}}. Should that add the page to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, but requiring merger to parents rather than simple deletion? Or should the nomination be listed in a new section at WP:CFDS? – Fayenatic London 14:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be confusing to closing administrators at CFDS to have a 7-day delay rather than a 2-day delay as with other C2 nominations. But other than that, 2 or 7 days would be equally fine with me. We can also have it named C1B instead of C2F if a period of 7 days turns out to be the preferred option. I was assuming to have it listed in WP:CFDS, not necessarily in a new section (or we would need a new section if there is a delay of 7 days). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    I certainly meant a 2-day process rather than than 7. (Is there any easy way of checking for out-of-process emptying?) Oculi (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, C2F can simply be an addition to the other C2 processes, then.
    As for out-of-process emptying: "Related Changes" with categories only works on current members; it does not trace recent removals. (I've just edited that page to state this explicitly, as it was confusing to me in the past.) The checks that I sometimes do are: (1) check the other contribs of the editor who tagged the category as empty; (2) check the contribs of the category creator around the time they created the category, to see what else they originally added (this check is generally not quick). – Fayenatic London 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It has been implemented now. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have an issue with this. Speedy deletion requests for categories should not be a 2-day process but take a full 7 days such as for empty categories. I'm not sure a process primarily for uncontroversial category renames should have any criteria that allows for speedy deletion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    One could argue that 7 days for an uncontroversial deletion of an empty category is absurdly long. Oculi (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    C2A to C2E are not only for renaming but can also be speedy mergers, after 2 days; the outcome for the nominated page can either be redirection or deletion, at the discretion of the admin(s) who process it. C2F is not simple deletion like C1, but by default it is merger to all applicable parents. Therefore I support the processing of C2F by (i) listing on the Speedy page with the other C2s, and (ii) implementing the merger after 2 days. After that, the category would usually be deleted, but its contents have first been merged.
    Also, if the creator wants to re-create it and populate it with additional pages, there is nothing to stop them (this is also the case with C1). – Fayenatic London 20:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not against speedy deletion of such categories under some newly created criteria but this forum is not the proper venue. If there are no applicable categories to merge it to, then it's a deletion request which does not belong in a process for renaming and merging. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Formally it is a merge to the parent categories. If the article is already in its parent categories, or not in any category at all, the merge becomes of course technically equivalent to a delete, but that could likewise apply to merging under WP:C2D and WP:C2C criteria. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The C2 criteria exist because it was formerly the case that category pages couldn't be renamed like other pages, you needed to create a new cat page, copy the content from the old one, move the category talk page (if one exists), update the categories of all the member pages (which may involve amending templates and waiting for the job queue), and finally delete the original cat page. This last action is why a CSD criterion exists at all, and the number of actions that need to be carried out is why a delay exists - if people want to contest the speedy, they can do so in the two days before any action is taken. If it is felt that the rename is controversial and more than two days may be required to discuss, WP:CFD is the way to go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rathfelder, Fayenatic london, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, and Armbrust: Procedural comment I have moved all current C2F discussions in CFDS to the section "On hold pending other discussion", that other discussion being this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be one oppose, by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, on somewhat tenuous grounds in my opinion. One might suppose Rathfelder, who has used C2F, supports. I am aware that any oppose to a speedy, however groundless, leads to derailment but I had not supposed this would apply here. (An empty category is not discussed anywhere; its emptiness is not advertised anywhere except within a multitude of similarly empty categories.) Oculi (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a reasonable compromise. In fact I would happily extend it to any category with only one article. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree to the extent that we're still using a process for speedy renaming and merging for deletion. A "new name" is a required parameter for such speedy requests, and if one cannot be provided because the goal is deletion, then new speedy criteria she be created or it should be sent to CFD. Can we just ensure there is an applicable merger target or else it does not meet requirements for speedy merging? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The C2F procedure could require that {{cfm-speedy}} be used, and that the target stated in that template should be an appropriate parent of the nominated category if there is one, or otherwise one of the categories on the lead article. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars would that sufficiently address your concerns? – Fayenatic London 14:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree this is a good idea, a category that only contains its eponymous article is effectively empty. That said how would you deal with cases where redirects to the eponymous article are in the category, IMO unless there is a reasonable likelihood those redirects will become separate articles in the near future then C2F should apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Fayenatic london: What should be the next step in this discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • As User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has made other edits without replying further to the above, I think we can take it that we now have consensus. I propose that C2F should also cover categories with a single media file, such as Category:Koukoulion (currently on hold with the others at WP:CFDS#C2F), being revised as follows. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree. I would go as far as any number of image files (if only image files in the category) and it is not specifically a category for images. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • C2F is envisaged as a quick process for a category with just one member. If there are multiple image files, there might be scope for useful renaming as a category for images. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic london: I agree with the file extension but what about cases where redirects that just redirect back to the main article are also in the category? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:Middle-earth_horses is a set category, not eponymous. My intention was that WP:C2F should apply only to eponymous categories (which is implicit in the present wording but should perhaps be explicit). I can't offhand think of any example of valid eponymous categories containing any top-level redirects (most redirects should be in a set subcat, eg cat:Band albums). WP:C2F also would not apply if there were any subcats at all (some editors seem to think that pages in subcats don't count). Oculi (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree with Fayenatic london in that (although a category that only contains redirects to the main article) shouldn't be eligible for C2F it probably shouldn't usually be kept (a CFD would be useful in determaning if the redirects could reasonably become articles). Maybe the article's main template should also be allowed that is to say if Category:Foo only contained the main article, its image and {{Template:Foo}}. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Then I will move the nominations that were on hold from the section "On hold pending other discussion" back to the main speedy section, commenting that User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has withdrawn their oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I changed them from deletion to merger nominations. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article 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 {{cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).