Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Categories for discussion (CfD) is where the renaming, merging or deletion of categories – i.e. pages in the Category namespace – is discussed and action decided. Stub types templates are also discussed here.

Categories are used to organize pages and aid the browsing of related articles. For instructions as to how to use this page, perform cleanup maintenance or request speedy deletions or renamings, see "How to use CfD" below. The policies meant to guide category renaming may be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made.

Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised.

When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it is usually helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.

Scope[edit]

CfD is only intended for discussions where an editor already has a clear action proposal in mind. For general brainstorming on how to improve the category system, good places for discussion include Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and the talk pages of any WikiProjects relevant to the content covered by the categories in question.

Current discussions[edit]

Add a new entry


Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

How to use CfD[edit]

Shortcut:

Procedure[edit]

To list a category manually for deletion, merging or renaming, follow this process:

I
Preliminary steps.

Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming.

  1. If it is a red link and has no subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
  3. Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant to other categories (not redundant to stand-alone lists), small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas.
  4. When nominating or commenting on people-related categories, please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy.
  5. When nominating or commenting on Wikipedian categories, please read Wikipedia:User categories and Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories.
  6. In the following special cases:
    • If the category is empty for more than four days, use {{db-catempty}} for a speedy deletion.
    • If the category is only populated by a template and both the category and template are being proposed for deletion, follow the instructions at templates for discussion.
II
Edit the category.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the category text of every category to be discussed. (The tags belong on the categories' main pages rather than their talk/discussion pages.)

If the category is a candidate for speedy renaming or merging, use:
and follow the instructions at the Speedy page.
Otherwise, if a single category:
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd}}
  • For a merger, {{subst:cfm|Other category}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:cfr|Proposed name}}
  • For splitting, {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2}}
  • For converting the category contents into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name}}
  • For converting the category page text into an article, {{subst:cfc|Proposed name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), {{subst:cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, and for nominations involving large numbers of categories, tagging help can be requested at the talk page):
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd|Cfd section name}}
  • For a merger, {{subst:cfm|Other category|Cfd section name}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:cfr|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For splitting, {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|Cfd section name}}
  • For converting the category contents into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For converting the category page text into an article, {{subst:cfc|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), {{subst:cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|Cfd section name}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
  • Please include "CFD", "CFM", "CFR", "CFS", "CFL" or "CFC" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
  • Preview before saving. The display will give more precise instructions about the next step.
  • See the documentation pages at {{cfd}}, {{cfm}}, {{cfr}}, {{cfs}}, {{cfl}} and {{cfc}} for more specific information.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfdnotice2|Category name|date=2016 March 29|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. See the doc page at Template:Cfdnotice2/doc for more information on how to use this template.
  • Similarly, consider adding {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|2016 March 29|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator or a related WikiProject.
III
Create the CFD section.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), to copy and paste the template shown. All categories are specified without the Category: prefix.

For {{Cfd}}, use:
{{subst:cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfm}}, use:
{{subst:cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfr}} to a definite name, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Old category|New category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfr}} to an indefinite name, use:
{{subst:cfr2|Old category|to be determined by consensus|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfs}} to definite names, use:
{{subst:cfs2|Old category|New category 1|New category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfl}} or {{Cfc}}, use:
{{subst:cfc2|Origin category|Destination article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For {{Cfd|type=other type}}, use:
{{subst:cfd2|type=other type}}
When using these templates, the old and new categories you specify are automatically converted to links; do not use square brackets to specify them as links yourself.
For umbrella nominations, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, like this:
==== Cfd section name ====
  • 1st category
  • 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]
  • Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.
  • If an umbrella nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide the bulk of nominated categories.
  • In your reason, please link appropriate articles or categories to help other editors.
  • In your reason, when linking to a category, always add a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
  • Preview before saving to ensure all the fields have been properly listed.

Once you have previewed your entry, please make sure to add your signature after your proposal. If nominating a list of entries as a batch mentioned after your rationale, it is somewhat neater to place these after the signature (rather than leave the signature dangling at the end of the list, apparently unrelated to your reasons).

Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding to your watchlist any categories you nominate. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle[edit]

The use of Wikipedia:Twinkle greatly facilitates CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to "my preferences", the "Gadgets" tab, the "Browsing" section and check "Twinkle ...". Use the now-installed "XfD" (Nominate for deletion) tab while viewing the page to be deleted or renamed.

Users without accounts and users with new accounts[edit]

Users without accounts (unregistered users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD).

Redirecting categories[edit]

Shortcut:

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)

Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects.

In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

Closing[edit]

When closing CfDs, document their results (e.g. with links to CfD page history) on the talk pages of the affected categories, if not deleted. If deleted, document the deletion decision in the deletion edit summary. See {{cfd top}}.

Special notes[edit]

When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

If a category is only used as generated by a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo-stub), and that template is deleted by a regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be deleted as well as long as it was nominated along with the template, or mentioned early in the discussion. == Speedy renaming and merging ==

Shortcut:

Categories may be listed for speedy renaming or speedy merging if they meet one or more of the criteria specified below. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. A request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required to process these. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.

Contested requests become stale, and can be un-tagged and de-listed, after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to continue the process, they need to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions here.

Speedy criteria[edit]

The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C1. Unpopulated categories[edit]

Shortcut:
That have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.
Tag category with {{Db-c1}}.

C2. Renaming or merging[edit]

Shortcuts:
C2A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
C2B. Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
C2C. Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names.
  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
  • This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result.
C2E. Author request.
  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within 28 days of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
For C2A to C2E, tag category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}} and list on WP:CFDS. Administrators may implement C2E cases without delay.

For any categories that are not speedy candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here,
    • And no objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:

* [[:Category:{old name here}]] to [[:Category:{new name here}]] – {reason for rename here} ~~~~

This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.

Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 20:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 98 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

Opposed nominations[edit]

Yep, makes sense now I think of it - been frazzling myself on categories lately, so allowed myself to be steered by the majority usage in this case. Happy to withdraw, but still probably needs redirects the other way.Le Deluge (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both: see below comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose renaming of Category:Jaguar Formula One cars to Category:Jaguar Cars Formula One cars - the Formula One team was just known as "Jaguar", so the category name should remain as is. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose all: agree with DH85868993; Jaguar Cars is the name of the company, it's not the brand name (despite the article saying so), "Jaguar" is, and the model names are like "Jaguar F-Type", not "Jaguar Cars F-Type". We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both: see above comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the aircraft. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both: Per WP:C2C (long-established tree naming convention}. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both: see above comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: see above comments on Jaguar Cars. We need to distinguish the brand name from the company making the cars. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Concur with all oppose on this set of renames; this is a semantic confusion of the company and the product line's brand name. It's the same as trying to rename all "Windows" categories to use "Microsoft" instead of "Windows".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
  • None currently
Moved to full discussion[edit]
Oppose Per WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Support: RETAIN pertains to article content not categories, and it only applies anyway when the change would be arbitrary and has no real rationale (C2C is a rationale).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: agree with SMcCandlish. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both Per WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Support both per comment above. RETAIN is not a magic wand that disappears other concerns. It's a default when there are no other concerns. And it doesn't apply in this namespace to begin with. [Note: The MOS:TIES part of MOS:ENGVAR can be relevant here, but it is not in this case other than we favor US spellings for W. Hemisphere topics, except where there's a strong British or Canadian tie.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Clarified.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: agree with SMcCandlish. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved both above to a full discussion.
Unfortunately nationalistic spelling obsessions is taking place here. I would never dream of trying to eradicate American English spelling in the way others are doing with British English spelling. No credible reason is being presented as to why WP:RETAIN is not relevant here AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
To have one spelling within the country categories for Brazil and China (which both required changing for other reasons) Hugo999 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @AusLondonder:, you mean nationalist spelling stuff taking place like ... going RM to RM opposing all moves that have anything to do with alleged spelling differences between UK and US English, so desperately that one injects bogus rationales in all of them, clouding the discussion with noise? (This is not actually a UK vs. US English matter to begin with. Read Oxford spelling – ize is perfectly acceptable in British/Commonwealth English, just as in Canadian, especially in an academic/formal register, which is what WP is written in. The only English dialect that insists on one spelling is American, and it's not ise, so the ENGVAR question is entirely moot.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would say "-ise" vs "-ize" is entirely moot as far as ENGVAR questions are concerned. I've seen so many consensus decisions where the adoption of "-ise" is done explicitly on ENGVAR grounds, right or wrong. That said, it's true that "-ize" is the older, more original form of English and is not a result of Webster's Americanism simplifications, as in the case of many other ENGVAR issues, so it is a somewhat different case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Kind of an "WP:OTHERCRAPHAPPENED" point, though. >;-) How many of those discussions included any discussion of Oxford spelling? I concede "irrelevant" was hyperbolic. ENGVAR would be relevant for an -ise → -ize move if the topic had strong American ties. It shouldn't carry much weight the other way around, because -ize is okay in British/Commonwealth English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"-ize" is OK in British English, but it's questionable whether it is preferred (or more popular), which is probably the more salient issue. As much as proponents of Oxford style wish it ruled the isles, it doesn't always. I'm involved in academic publishing, and all UK journals I deal with, save those published by Oxford University, demand the "-ise" spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you say, @SMCCandlish: the facts are clear. -ise remains overwhelmingly preferred in India, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (plus many smaller countries). The European Union uses -ise. The Australian newspaper goes so far as to rename the World Health Organization to the World Health Organisation in its coverage. The Indian government will obviously have to rename Central Organisation for Modernisation of Workshops, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, Federation of Indian Export Organisations, India Trade Promotion Organisation, Defence Research and Development Organisation and also of course the Indian Space Research Organisation. All at your command. AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The -ise spelling is preferred in news style and fiction, the -ize in formal/academic publishing. Which kind is Wikipedia? I'm not arguing, of course, that the -ise spelling should be expunged; it's an acceptable and common variant outside the US, and yes, it's more common in less formal writing like newspapers. People simply have to stop treating ENGVAR as if it said "you can pick US or UK English only, and there is one an only one way to spell, punctuate or do anything in each of these dialects". It doesn't indicate anything like that, and it would be dead wrong if it did. On average I'll support an -ize to -ise move if the subject is British, Australian, Indian, etc. (not Canadian), but only if there are not countervailing reasons against it, like divergence from the rest of a consistent category (some categories consistently use one or the other depending on ENGVAR, some use only one spelling regardless of the country, and either system is okay, just not a mishmash), or no strong ties and someone just like -ise better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"The -ise spelling is preferred in news style and fiction, the -ize in formal/academic publishing." This is not my experience. As I mentioned above, I'm involved in academic publishing, and all UK journals I deal with, save those published by Oxford University, demand the "-ise" spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There is a city in Pakistan by the same name.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There is a city in Pakistan by the same name.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion AusLondonder (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Category:MediaCorp to Category:Mediacorp – C2D per Mediacorp. Was previously opposed here b/c the article was moved without discussion, but it appears to me to have been a non-controversial move with no objections Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose speedy Sorry, but C2D explicitly requires a discussion. An unopposed technical request is not a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Unless someone can articulate a substantive (ie, nonprocedural) reason that the rename should be opposed, to insist on a full discussion pretty much flies in the face of WP:BURO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I'd like to agree Good Ol’factory, but WP:BURO has its limits, esp when it comes to consensus-forming processes. For example, there have been some recent big rows over the early closure of AFDs, and previous bustups over speedy actions which stretched or broke the criteria.
          There may be a case for widening C2D, but until a change is agreed, this doesn't fit. A single categ is easy to list at a full CFD, using Twinkle, so it's not a huge burden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
          • If there's no substantive case to be made for why it should not be renamed, then moving it to a full discussion is a waste of time, whether that waste is small or large. This always happens on this page with users who seem to enjoy enforcing process over substance. And every time these types of discussions get moved, they end up being processed as nominated. I don't know of a single exception, and I doubt that this will be one either. (The waste or time comes not with the effort required to nominate it for a full discussion, but the loss of the advantage of the speedy process—the category will thus remain at a name that is different than its main article for at least a week, and possibly much longer, given the amount of time it takes for many CFD discussions to be closed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ready for deletion[edit]

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Categories possibly emptied out of process[edit]

Note. Categories listed here will be automatically moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 96 hours.
Note. Due to limits of the software, all contents of the category may not be displayed. View the category directly to see all contents.

Empty categories awaiting deletion
► 1960s establishments in Wallis and Futuna
► 1961 in Wallis and Futuna
► 1st-millennium BC establishments in Tonga
► 1st-millennium establishments in Wallis and Futuna
► 2015 ICC World Twenty20
► 202 BC in international relations
► 206 BC in international relations
► 207 BC in international relations
► 218 BC in international relations
► 21st-century American rappers
► 221 BC in international relations
► 238 BC in international relations
► 3rd-century establishments in Easter Island
► 4th-century establishments in Bora Bora
► Arab settlements in Turkey
► Bancak, Semarang
► Brkhera Basantpur urf Dayanathpur village
► Disestablishments in Samoa by year
► Roman duces
► Establishments in Wallis and Futuna by year
► Fictional peacocks
► Foundation schools in Rotherham
► Gas-fired power stations in Nigeria
► Gas-fired power stations in Rwanda
► Heads
► Human Drama video albums
► ICC Champions Trophy winners squad navigational boxes
► Jet Black Stare albums
► Kenyan female photographers
► Kikokushijo
► Kurdish al-Qaeda members
► Latin American people of Huguenot descent
► Mananthavady
► Music groups from Louisiana
► Published Author's
► Roman Catholic churches completed 1659
► Roman Catholic churches in 1702
► Television in Philippines
► Template district of Indonesia
► Undercover police agent
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160402144920/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion

Leave a Reply