Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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, s/he needs to submit the request as a regular CfD in accordance with the instructions there.

Speedy criteria[edit]

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

C1. Unpopulated categories[edit]

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]

Main page: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
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 only be used 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 only be applied 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 due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which 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 which resulted in a no consensus result.
C2E. Author request.
  • This criterion only applies 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 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 20:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC). Currently, there are 111 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

Opposed nominations[edit]

  • Category:Ornaments to Category:Ornament – Match main article Ornament (art), & more appropriate Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Object to speedy categories are pluralized, so matching the main article in the plural form. Further, the main article "ornament (art)" but the proposed name is not "ornament (art)" (nor "ornaments (art)") so fails to match the main article in all cases. There is a category for Category:Ornamentation which is about music? and doesn't match its main article either Ornament (music) so this is a mess; This needs a discussion -- (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Categories are not always pluralized; however, I agree that the conversion of a set category to a topic category should not be done speedily. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I get it but please take into consideration that other ethnic groups have already been treated in the manner I suggest -- forgive the bolding -- for instance see and
It would be wrong to treat different ethnic groups based on different standards and could potentially open an enormous can of worms! Quis separabit? 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
For reasons stated, I think a good argument could be made to eliminate the Category:Ethnic Armenian people by country of citizenship tree and collapse it into the Category:American people of Armenian descent tree. But this is something that would need to be subject to a full CFD, not the speedy process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC), I just worked on "of Italian descent" categories all morning long! I think you are considering the few exceptions rather than the rule. Do not just consider three categories, you need to look at the entire category tree that exists. You can't look at one category decision in isolation from the hundreds of similar categories. I agree with Good Ol’factory, that if you are insistent on eliminating this category, it needs to go for a CfD and you can expect me to argue against it. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis to Category:Ukrainian crisis – per C2D, as the main article has just been renamed following a requested move. Number 57 17:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    Comment there have been many crises in Ukraine and concerning Ukrainians in history, this seems a particularly poor name for a category that would naturally collect articles on crises in Ukraine (such as the Orange Revolution, the drive of Army Group South into the Ukraine, various peasant rebellions, etc, ad infinitum) -- (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    There have been many crises in Ukraine, but there is only one crisis called "Ukrainian crisis", and that's this one. The move at the main article is complete, and this must follow suit. RGloucester 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    It does not "must" follow suit, it only usually does so. Considering the genericity of the title, the category collecting unrelated materials seems to be a given. -- (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt that there's any great risk. The confusion that will result from having the category named differently than the article is probably more of a problem than the risk that someone will categorize a bunch of "Ukrainian crises" in the category. After all, if it was about all such crises, the category would be pluralized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. As it is, this is a workably named category that we can happily categorise under both lakes and villages. It's arguably more correct in full, but it's still very common to refer to the lake as Coniston alone. If it were to be renamed as Coniston Water then we'd have to split that. What benefit would that convey? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Also oppose. I don't see why the main article is said to be Coniston Water, when the more general Coniston, Cumbria would be a better fit. I would support a rename to Category:Coniston, Cumbria. Oculi (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why add the disambiguation? Are we overwhelmed with Conistons? Is there any question of this being the primary Coniston? I oppose Coniston, Cumbria in particular because Cumbria is still a relatively recent invention as a county. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Georgia the US state does not compete at the World Championships in Athletics so there are no grounds for confusion. Compare for example Georgia at the Olympics. SFB 21:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
  • None currently
Moved to full discussion[edit]

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.