Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: Difference between revisions
→Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here: move 1 to opposed |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
* [[:Category:Christian ethics in the Bible]] to [[:Category:Ethics in the Bible]], C2D per [[Ethics in the Bible]], while the possibility of C2E has expired for a long time. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 15:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC) |
* [[:Category:Christian ethics in the Bible]] to [[:Category:Ethics in the Bible]], C2D per [[Ethics in the Bible]], while the possibility of C2E has expired for a long time. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 15:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. {{yo|Marcocapelle}} The category's contents are wholly New Testament, and 2 of the 3 parent cats are "Christian foo". So while the (poor) article [[Ethics in the Bible]] may be an OK choice as head article, it covers both Jewish and Christian topics but the cat is Christian. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 01:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Opposed nominations==== |
====Opposed nominations==== |
Revision as of 01:04, 24 April 2018
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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 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") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}
, and no delay is required to process these. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.
Contested speedy 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 there.
Speedy criteria
The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
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
- Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
- Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).
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 page's name
- Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
- This applies only if the related page'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 because the page was just moved after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply, even if an article is the primary topic of its name.
- 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 six months 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 that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
Admin instructions for handling listed entries
When handling the listings:
- Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
- With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
- Make sure that there are no oppositions to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing the opposition(s).
If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed - follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.
Applying C2 in full CfD discussions
- 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
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]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
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 09:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 2,296 open requests (. )
![]() | Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here! Categories are processed following the 48-hour discussion period and are moved by a bot. |
Current nominations
- Category:Public broadcasting in the South Sudan to Category:Public broadcasting in South Sudan – C2A/B Articles waiting at target 149.254.234.173 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry to Category:National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry – Wikifyingly so per main article National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:LeMoyne-Owen College faculty to Category:LeMoyne–Owen College faculty – C2D. See parent category and LeMoyne–Owen College Vycl1994 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Christian ethics in the Bible to Category:Ethics in the Bible, C2D per Ethics in the Bible, while the possibility of C2E has expired for a long time. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. @Marcocapelle: The category's contents are wholly New Testament, and 2 of the 3 parent cats are "Christian foo". So while the (poor) article Ethics in the Bible may be an OK choice as head article, it covers both Jewish and Christian topics but the cat is Christian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Opposed nominations
- Category:Leprechaun films to Category:Films about leprechauns – per C2C (e.g. Category:Films about fairies and sprites and Category:Films about leprechauns). NeoBatfreak 15:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy There is no clear convention for the proposed format in Category:Fantasy films by genre. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:South Dakota School of Mines Hardrockers to Category:South Dakota Mines Hardrockers – C2D Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy. Their own website describes them as the "South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Hardrockers". The head article was at South Dakota School of Mines Hardrockers until an undiscussed move[1] in February 2017. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Far-left political parties in Israel to Category:Far-left politics in Israel – C2C; compare Category:Far-left political parties by country with Category:Far-left politics by country. A category will require speedy deletion after the renames and recategorization. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Far-left political parties in the Czech Republic to Category:Far-left politics in the Czech Republic – C2C; same as above. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy @Wumbolo: this is not a naming convention issue; it is a merge-subcat proposal, which needs a full discussion. And please unpipe the "this" links; obscuring the names just makes it harder to assess your proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_10#Category:Far-left_political_parties. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:LOEN Entertainment to Category:Kakao M – C2D; LOEN Entertainment changed its name to Kakao M on March 23, 2018. RafaelPPascual (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy only recently renamed and without an RM, thus C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion
- None currently
Moved to full discussion
- Category:Middle-earth theology to Category:Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium, C2D per Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not convinced that Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium is the main article of the category. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Female recipients of the Croix de Guerre to Category:Female recipients of the Croix de Guerre (France) – C2C: per parent Category:Recipients of the Croix de guerre (France). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Any objection to Category:Female recipients of the Croix de guerre (France) (lowercase "g"), per the parent? -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: I hadn't spotted that discrepancy. I was about to say yes, lc per parent, but I went to look for the head articles: Recipients of the Croix de Guerre (France) and Croix de Guerre. I dunno which capitalisation is best, but think we should follow the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I rather think the articles are misnamed and "guerre" should not be capitalized—it certainly wouldn't be in French. I'll do a bit of digging on this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: pending the outcome of your research on head article titles, are you OK for me to proceed with a move to Category:Female recipients of the Croix de guerre (France)? I think it's impt to at least add the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl and Black Falcon: I suggest another RM on the main article. There was one in 2015 but it was very sparsely attended. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl and Black Falcon: I have processed this using the lowercase option. However, I've belatedly checked NGrams which show a preference for lowercase in recent French [2] but capitalisation predominant in English.[3] – Fayenatic London 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl and Black Falcon: I suggest another RM on the main article. There was one in 2015 but it was very sparsely attended. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: pending the outcome of your research on head article titles, are you OK for me to proceed with a move to Category:Female recipients of the Croix de guerre (France)? I think it's impt to at least add the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I rather think the articles are misnamed and "guerre" should not be capitalized—it certainly wouldn't be in French. I'll do a bit of digging on this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: I hadn't spotted that discrepancy. I was about to say yes, lc per parent, but I went to look for the head articles: Recipients of the Croix de Guerre (France) and Croix de Guerre. I dunno which capitalisation is best, but think we should follow the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london and Black Falcon: Full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Croix_de_Guerre_(France). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Any objection to Category:Female recipients of the Croix de guerre (France) (lowercase "g"), per the parent? -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Steeplechase horse racing to Category:Steeplechase – C2D (Steeplechase); this is just redundant blather, like "guitarist musician". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. @SMcCandlish: WP:C2D "applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous". Steeplechase is ambiguous with Steeplechase (athletics). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have created Category:Steeplechase as a {{Category disambiguation}} page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- That seems counter-productive. This should just move to a full CfD, except now we'll need to add that cat-dab page for deletion. We don't do cat-dabs unless there's a clear showing of a need. Standard operating procedure is to follow the disambiguation patterns (where any exist) of the main articles in their categories, so we should have Category:Steeplechase match Steeplechase and Category:Steeplechase (athletics) match Steeplechase (athletics), with no cat-dab page, unless it's shown that people frequently try to mis-categorize non-relevant articles into Category:Steeplechase. We would have tens or even hundreds of thousands more cat-dabs if we routinely did what you've done here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I don't see cat-dabs as something to be avoided, and was not aware of any consensus to avoid them. If there is a full CfD which closes with your preferred rename, it will take the closing admin only a few seconds to delete the cat dab, just as they'd do with a cat redirect.
- C2D has been clear for at least 2 years (maybe longer) that it doesn't apply in case of ambiguity, so I am surprised at your description of standard operating procedure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yet we avoid cat-dabs nonetheless, whether you agree we should or not, otherwise (I repeat) we would have tens or even hundreds of thousands more of them. You did not carefully read what I said, which said nothing about SOP being C2D in this kind of case (yes, it was an error on my part). The SOP is moving a contested speedy to full CfD, and the other SOP is naming categories after their articles, absent an unusual reason not to do so, rather than trying to second-guess in category space whether RM made the right PRIMARYTOPIC and other disambiguation decisions (if applicable) in mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a prob with many more cat-dabs. Evidently we disagree about that, but AFAICS their scarcity is due to ppl not knowing about them or not bothering, rather than any consensus for restraint.
- And sorry, but I did read what you wrote. You hadn't said anything before about C2D being an error, so I wasn't aware you had accepted that point.
- Finally, this isn't about second-guessing RMs. It's about the greater probs caused by ambiguity in cat names, which need a higher threshold for PRIMARYTOPIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not saying you have no rationale, and wasn't intending to argue it out on the spot; seems more a matter for the full CfD (and saying there needing to be one was my concession that my speedy was an error, heh). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: this one will be delisted as stale on Friday 1 March . You may want to take it to full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not saying you have no rationale, and wasn't intending to argue it out on the spot; seems more a matter for the full CfD (and saying there needing to be one was my concession that my speedy was an error, heh). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yet we avoid cat-dabs nonetheless, whether you agree we should or not, otherwise (I repeat) we would have tens or even hundreds of thousands more of them. You did not carefully read what I said, which said nothing about SOP being C2D in this kind of case (yes, it was an error on my part). The SOP is moving a contested speedy to full CfD, and the other SOP is naming categories after their articles, absent an unusual reason not to do so, rather than trying to second-guess in category space whether RM made the right PRIMARYTOPIC and other disambiguation decisions (if applicable) in mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- That seems counter-productive. This should just move to a full CfD, except now we'll need to add that cat-dab page for deletion. We don't do cat-dabs unless there's a clear showing of a need. Standard operating procedure is to follow the disambiguation patterns (where any exist) of the main articles in their categories, so we should have Category:Steeplechase match Steeplechase and Category:Steeplechase (athletics) match Steeplechase (athletics), with no cat-dab page, unless it's shown that people frequently try to mis-categorize non-relevant articles into Category:Steeplechase. We would have tens or even hundreds of thousands more cat-dabs if we routinely did what you've done here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have created Category:Steeplechase as a {{Category disambiguation}} page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. @SMcCandlish: WP:C2D "applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous". Steeplechase is ambiguous with Steeplechase (athletics). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Category:1590 establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1590 establishments in Cape Verde – C2C within Category:Establishments in Cape Verde by year. These few exceptions were created by user:Ricky81682 who has since been blocked. – Fayenatic London 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Category:1865 establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1865 establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:1897 establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1897 establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:1909 establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1909 establishments in Cape Verde (over redirect)
- Category:1590s establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1590s establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:1860s establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1860s establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:1890s establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1890s establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:1900s establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1900s establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:1590 in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1590 in Cape Verde
- Category:1865 in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1865 in Cape Verde
- Category:1897 in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1897 in Cape Verde
- Category:1909 in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1909 in Cape Verde
- Category:1860s in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1860s in Cape Verde
- Category:1890s in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:1890s in Cape Verde
- Category:15th-century establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:15th-century establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:19th-century establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde to Category:19th-century establishments in Cape Verde
- Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde by century to Category:Establishments in Cape Verde by century and Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde
- Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde by decade to Category:Establishments in Cape Verde by decade
- Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde by year to Category:Establishments in Cape Verde by year
- @Fayenatic london: Aren't these categories appropriate within Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde by year and Category:Portuguese Cape Verde more generally. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Black Falcon: That "by year" parent currently only holds these four outliers. I don't think it would be helpful to navigation to populate it with all the annual categories. All we need for Category:Portuguese Cape Verde is for Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde and Category:Years in Portuguese Cape Verde to be populated with the relevant centuries in Cape Verde, and beginning/end periods from the 15th and 20th centuries; I have now added the Establishments ones. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unless I misunderstand your meaning, that would lead to a situation where Category:1865 establishments in Cape Verde would be an indirect subcategory of Category:Portuguese Cape Verde—an outcome with which I disagree. If there is to be any separation between Category:Cape Verde and Category:Portuguese Cape Verde at the top level, shouldn't it apply equally to the Years and Establishments categories—i.e. XXXX establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde between 1492 and 1975? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- The nominations would result in Cape Verde categories being named and parented the same way as those for Angola, see e.g. the sub-cats of Category:Establishments in Angola by decade, and Category:History of Angola by period & Category:Portuguese Angola. In fact, it will still be better than Angola, as Category:Portuguese Angola currently does not have an establishments sub-category. I concede that Cape Verde will no longer feature within Category:Establishments in the Portuguese Empire by century/decade/millennium/year, but it will still be in Category:Establishments in the Portuguese Empire.
- IMHO the nomination results in a simpler and neater result than the alternative, which is to rename & redirect all the categories up to 1974 to "Portuguese Cape Verde". Against that, the article Portuguese Cape Verde makes it clear that the country was not known as "Portuguese Cape Verde" but as "Cape Verde". – Fayenatic London 21:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london and Black Falcon: I agree with FL's proposal, but it seems to me that there is a clash here of two conventions. So I think C2C doesn't apply; this needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unless I misunderstand your meaning, that would lead to a situation where Category:1865 establishments in Cape Verde would be an indirect subcategory of Category:Portuguese Cape Verde—an outcome with which I disagree. If there is to be any separation between Category:Cape Verde and Category:Portuguese Cape Verde at the top level, shouldn't it apply equally to the Years and Establishments categories—i.e. XXXX establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde between 1492 and 1975? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Black Falcon: That "by year" parent currently only holds these four outliers. I don't think it would be helpful to navigation to populate it with all the annual categories. All we need for Category:Portuguese Cape Verde is for Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde and Category:Years in Portuguese Cape Verde to be populated with the relevant centuries in Cape Verde, and beginning/end periods from the 15th and 20th centuries; I have now added the Establishments ones. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Aren't these categories appropriate within Category:Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde by year and Category:Portuguese Cape Verde more generally. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Hong Kong Eastern Long Lions seasons to Category:Hong Kong Eastern Basketball Team seasons – C2D Hong Kong Eastern Basketball Team Le Deluge (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy. @Le Deluge: Hong Kong Eastern Basketball Team was boldly moved[4] to its current title in Dec 2017, apparently without discussion. So WP:C2D is inapplicable; this needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fine - I have no view on what the right name is, merely that the article and category match.Le Deluge (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 27#Category:Hong_Kong_Eastern_Long_Lions_seasons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy. @Le Deluge: Hong Kong Eastern Basketball Team was boldly moved[4] to its current title in Dec 2017, apparently without discussion. So WP:C2D is inapplicable; this needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Information storage to Category:Data storage – C2D: Information storage redirects to Data storage. ghouston (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose @Ghouston: there is an article redirect, but this would narrow the scope of the category. The article data storage is mostly about recording media, but the category includes Category:Archives and Category:Museums. They mostly don't fit under that definition of data storage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is any significant different between "information" and "data" in this context. Data storage starts with "Data storage is the ecording (storing) of information (data) in a storage medium" so it's using the terms as synonyms. I don't think museums should even be in the category: they may store data along with objects, but there are a lot of organisations that store data. I don't see any problem with Archives. As for Data vs Information, definitions vary and distinguishing them is splitting hairs. Data says at one point: "According to a common view, data is collected and analyzed; data only becomes information suitable for making decisions once it has been analyzed in some fashion", suggesting that information is a subset of data, yet Category:Data is a subcategory of Category:Information. ghouston (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: you make a good case, but I'm not entirely persuaded by that analysis, which seems to me to be possibly a little too tied to a computing perspective. I have no expertise in the field, so I maybe wholly wrong, but I think this needs a full discussion to allow other editors to contribute.
If you like, I can do a procedural nomination which includes a copy of our discussion here; alternatively you could create the full discussion setting out your rationale at the head. Which would you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)- It's information theory as much as computing. A bit is the basic unit of information, and is also the basic unit of data. It seems unlikely to me that data and information can be distinguished in any meaningful way in categories. But please go ahead with whatever procedure is required. ghouston (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: you make a good case, but I'm not entirely persuaded by that analysis, which seems to me to be possibly a little too tied to a computing perspective. I have no expertise in the field, so I maybe wholly wrong, but I think this needs a full discussion to allow other editors to contribute.
- I don't believe there is any significant different between "information" and "data" in this context. Data storage starts with "Data storage is the ecording (storing) of information (data) in a storage medium" so it's using the terms as synonyms. I don't think museums should even be in the category: they may store data along with objects, but there are a lot of organisations that store data. I don't see any problem with Archives. As for Data vs Information, definitions vary and distinguishing them is splitting hairs. Data says at one point: "According to a common view, data is collected and analyzed; data only becomes information suitable for making decisions once it has been analyzed in some fashion", suggesting that information is a subset of data, yet Category:Data is a subcategory of Category:Information. ghouston (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 15#Category:Information_storage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose @Ghouston: there is an article redirect, but this would narrow the scope of the category. The article data storage is mostly about recording media, but the category includes Category:Archives and Category:Museums. They mostly don't fit under that definition of data storage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Ready for deletion
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.