Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Categories This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 6 May 2006, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The result of the discussion was page moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Hi! I recently got a few pages of suburbs around Wahroonga changed. Schestos made the RM, but it was effectively me, as I asked Schestos for help. The category should moved from Category: Wahroonga, New South Wales to Category:Wahroonga. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, I believe standard procedure is to list the category at WP:CFDS (per WP:C2D). — Qwerfjkltalk 08:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, either manually, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here, or using Twinkle. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QwerfjklI read the instructions. Do I basically just type it in on the talk page? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, not quite. If you're unsure, I recommend you use Twinkle, as I said. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl I meant to say I read the instructions. I don’t know how to use

twinkle unfortunately Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, that's what the page Twinkle is for. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions seems to be broken. I'm only seeing the text "This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot. #invoke:XfD old". -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's exceeding the WP:PEIS limit because there are too many discussions. This will fix itself when some are closed. You can use the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions instead in the mean time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that makes sense. If we already have the other list that works more reliably, maybe we should just decommission this one and save the server load and navigational complexity? -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it convenient to read all of the discussion in one page rather than having to click a link in the past, so I think both have their uses. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Would it be possible to have it link to the backup page in case it's down, with an explanation as to why? (It doesn't need to be hidden when the page is working if it just says at the bottom of the page something like "If this page is empty, too many discussions are open....") -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced investing time making an already undesirable state (over a 100 discussions pending closure, some dating back two months or more) slightly less undesirable is worth it, but if you want to do it go ahead I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If too many discussions are open, we'd want to facilitate more people closing discussions, and smoother navigation helps just a little bit, so I've gone ahead and done that. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I closed a bunch of discussions, and I now suspect the size overflow is being caused not by an unusual number of open discussions, but by the fact that several are mass nominations with hundreds or thousands of categories listed. -- Beland (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Video games scored by Fabian Del Priore should be removed. This is because "Fabien Del Priore" is a non-notable person, previously deleted from Wikipedia (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Del_Priore). Please help me get this incoherent category removed. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FD1C:68CD:8DB8:EAC0 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]