Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

"WP:CFDS" redirects here. For the criteria for speedy deletion, see WP:CFSD.

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
2. Tag category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy 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}} with no required delay. 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, it may be requested regularly at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

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: Consistency with 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: Consistency with established category tree names

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: Consistency with main article'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 (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). 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

When handling the listings:

1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
3. 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 speedy criteria in full 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 11:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 269 open requests ().

---

Current requests

• Category:Real Madrid C.F.-related lists to Category:Real Madrid CF-related lists – C2D per head article Real Madrid CF, moved to current title per Talk:Real Madrid CF#Requested_move_29_December_2018. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:Real Madrid C.F. managers to Category:Real Madrid CF managers
  • Category:Real Madrid C.F. templates to Category:Real Madrid CF templates
  • Category:Real Madrid C.F. seasons to Category:Real Madrid CF seasons
  • Category:Real Madrid C.F. non-playing staff to Category:Real Madrid CF non-playing staff
  • Category:Real Madrid C.F. players to Category:Real Madrid CF players
  • Category:Real Madrid C.F. matches to Category:Real Madrid C.F. matches

• Category:Immigrants to the United States from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland emigrants to the United States – C2C: per convention of Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland, and per the broader convention to describe migrants to CountryA to CountryB as "emigrants". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Mike Fitzgerald games to Category:Mike Fitzgerald (game designer) games – C2D: Per Mike Fitzgerald (game designer).-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Martin Wallace games to Category:Martin Wallace (game designer) games – C2D: Per Martin Wallace (game designer).-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Larry Harris games to Category:Larry Harris (game designer) games – C2D: Per Larry Harris (game designer).-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Arthurian games to Category:Games based on Arthurian legends – C2C per Category:Works based on Arthurian legends. This will be clearer, despite the majority of siblings being named "Arthurian [media]". – Fayenatic London 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Video games based on Arthurian legend to Category:Video games based on Arthurian legends – C2C: Consistency with established category tree names Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Business CEOs template to Category:Chief Executive Officer templates Category:Chief executive officer templates – C2B: should be spelled out, and plural. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose as proposed The main article is Chief executive officer. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Corrected above, my oversight. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:AC Express (Indian Railways) to Category:AC Express (Indian Railways) trains – C2C: The corresponding article name is AC Express (Indian Railways). And also "trains" as in all subcategories in Category:Express trains in India. Vatsmaxed (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I only tagged the category now, pls wait for 48h before processing--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Miyazaki, Miyazaki to Category:Miyazaki (city) – C2D. feminist (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:Media in Miyazaki, Miyazaki to Category:Media in Miyazaki (city)

    Oppose speeedy Only recently moved and without discussion, so C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Germanic Christianity to Category:Christianisation of the Germanic peoples – WP:C2D, as further emphasised by Talk:Christianisation_of_the_Germanic_peoples#Requested_move_16_November_2018. PPEMES (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  certainly not to be "speedied". The renaming of the article was "speedy" enough, done based on two "votes", based on false analogy ("there are other articles with analogous names") and without review of the actual topic, or any references. The article is not about "Christianisation" itself, this is at best a sub-topic, but about the early Germanic churches, c. 4th to 10th centuries.

  There can be no doubt that the term "Germanic Christianity" does exist in scholarly use in the sense I just outlined, [1], [2], [3]. I am more than willing to look into the question of whether it is a good choice as an article name, together with editors who are interested in the topic and who have the requisite topical knowledge. This as opposed to speedying the renaming of an article in good standing under its old title for more than 12 years(!) -- but I am not interested to resolve this question based on "speedy renaming" requests, or "article move requests" based on two or three "votes" thrown in in passing, this isn't how we achieve encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Gonadosteroids to Category:Sex steroids – Creator tried a cut/paste move of the sex steroid article to Gonadosteroids, C2D to reflect the existing article name Le Deluge (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  Suggest Category:Sex hormones, which is the existing category for this topic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Puzzles publisher to Category:Puzzle publishers – C2A/C2C Le Deluge (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  I am not sure if "publisher" is the right word here, as I think of newspapers as "publishers" of puzzles (albeit ones that they did not necessarily create or design). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  The two member pages were one puzzle publisher and one puzzle manufacturer; I've added another of the latter. In many other cases, puzzle-making is not sufficiently defining to categorise the makers/publishers even of leading puzzles, e.g. Rubik's Cube was made by Ideal Toy Company. Note: we do have the well-populated Category:Puzzle designers with a subcat for Jigsaw puzzle manufacturers. Perhaps Nikoli (publisher) could be added to the first, although currently it directly contains only individuals rather than companies; and Hanayama and Happy Puzzle Company should go in a new Category:Puzzle manufacturers. So to give credit for starting the category, we could rename to Category:Puzzle manufacturers, but to do this speedily (C2E) we would need User:Iexeru to agree. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree to rename to Puzzle manufacturers (Especially since manufacturers are usually publishers.) Iexeru (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Opposed requests

• Category:Buildings designed by Albert Kahn to Category:Albert Kahn buildings Category:Albert Kahn (architect) buildings – C2C within Category:Buildings and structures by American architects. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london: This should be renamed to Category:Albert Kahn (architect) buildings, as the article is located at Albert Kahn (architect). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Armbrust: Fair enough, I have changed the proposal accordingly. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  Opposed Look, this is another one where the article title's disambiguator is not necessary in a subsidiary category. We have Category:Amazon hardware and Category:Amazon parrots, and no one is going to think the former belongs to the river and the latter belongs to the company. No one is going to think these buildings relate to the journalist or the banker; Category:Albert Kahn buildings is fine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  @UnitedStatesian:. Much better to apply the naming policy consistently, and include the disambiguator, than to have editors wondering about whether someone has decided that in one particular case the disambiguator is not needed for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Gannett Company to Category:Gannett – C2.D: see Talk:Gannett#Requested move 5 December 2018. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think C2D applies here since "Gannett" is ambiguous, see Gannett (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose per Crouch, Swale ... and @Black Falcon, please do re-read C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  Support changing the cat. C2D does apply: the new article name came about after a RM discussion, linked above. @Black Falcon: knows what he/she is doing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  @UnitedStatesian: please go read WP:C2D. It doesn't apply when there is ambiguity, and Gannett (disambiguation) is evidence of th ambiguity. The RM discussion chose the company as the primary topic, but choice of a ptopic does not somehow abolish ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Majority–minority relations to Category:Majority-minority relations – C2A: hyphen, not a dash: both these constructs – "majority-minority" and "minority-majority" – are modifier grammatical forms (serving as adjectives grammatically) to the following nouns (e.g. area or state), which are formed from non-hyphenated noun-like forms "majority minority" and "minority majority" resp. cherkash (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose - You would be correct for a phrase such as "majority-minority area", where "majority-minority" serves to modify the noun ("area"). In this case, however, the title appears to be about relations between majorities and minorities, and "majority-minority" does not modify "relations". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose per Black Falcon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  Comment – Actually, you are right Black Falcon. I rushed the nomination without carefully reviewing the list of the articles in this category. Indeed, unlike what the majority minority article would suggest, the subject of many other articles is about majority vs. minority relations, so I stand corrected. The en-dashed spelling is correct here. cherkash (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Alphabet task force to Category:WikiProject Alphabet Inc. task force – C2D, to match main project page (and make clear it is a Project namespace cat). UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy, as page Wikipedia:WikiProject Alphabet Inc. Task Force was recently moved without discussion. I think it is mis-named anyway. Task Forces are sub-groups of WikiProjects, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Documentary films task force, so this one should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Alphabet task force (in which case "Inc" would be unnecessary disambiguation). The Alphabet task force was a sub-group of WP:WikiProject Google. As it's now inactive, it would probably be more use to upmerge this category to Category:WikiProject Google, and its sub-cats likewise. Otherwise, if not merged, the new name does not need to include "WikiProject" as well as "task force". – Fayenatic London 15:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose per FL. The project page should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Alphabet task force, or better yet should be deleted altogether. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Given that Google is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc, it would make more sense to have an Alphabet WP with Google as a taskforce within it.Le Deluge (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Secretaries of State for Health (UK) to Category:Secretaries of State for Health (United Kingdom) – C2B - UK -> United Kingdom. There's perhaps a CfD to be had about the full name, but let's just fix the blatant C2B problem first. Le Deluge (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  Le Deluge Oppose as proposed The main article of the category is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, so this should be renamed to Category:Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care per C2D. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  I thought someone might pull this one up. The way I see it, the C2B is straightforward and can be done speedily, there's an argument for C2D but it's complicated and I'd tend to oppose it. So perfection should not be the enemy of the good. Social Care was only added to the job title a few months ago, but the category goes back decades - it was simply SoS for Health for the last 30 years so that was the title held by most of the category members and that's the WP:COMMONNAME used even now that Social Care has been added. So there's no case for a simply speedy C2D - if you want to take it to CfD then fine, but I'd ask that you let the C2B go through first.Le Deluge (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  The main article was renamed in January, that's almost one year without being contested. I don't see why the category needs to be moved twice, if one move would suffice. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Armbrust: Again you're slightly missing the point. Yes, the article was renamed a year ago because the formal title was renamed a year ago - but the category represents decades of history in which just one individual has held the post under the current title - and even then he is commonly referred to as simply the Health Secretary, with no mention of social care. So it is factually incorrect to imply that dozens of former ministers were responsible for social care, whereas you can kinda get away with referring to the current incumbent as simply SoS for Health. So as I keep saying - there isn't two speedy moves to be had, there's a single speedy C2B, and then a disputable C2D that I for one would oppose. So let's just do the easy one and then CfD the disputed one - don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. Le Deluge (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  Le Deluge I don't think that's a problem. It's just like using the current name of a sports club for everyone who played for the club under a previous name. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Le Deluge, with respect,it seems to me that your quest for precision is based on misunderstanding the nature of UK govt departments. They are not fixed monoliths, but are more akin to holding companies which cover a wide variety of responsibilities that change over time. Those responsibilities are shuffled around between govt departments quite frequently, without any change in the Dept's name.

I spent a few decades in England working in the third sector on public policy issues, which involved dealing with govt departments. and several strands of my work shifted Dept. In each case, it was the same same people in the same named "unit" (as Whitehall calls it), but moved under the umbrella of a different department. One strand of my work dealt with a unit which moved between 4 different Govt Depts in a decade, and to two more Depts in the next 5 years.

This process is best illustrated by the most extreme example: Home Office#History. That's 236 years of mutation from the "Dept of Nearly Everything that Wasn't Foreign" to its current role roughly as a "police, borders and nationality ministry", shedding functions as fast as moulting dog ... but without any change of name.

Overall, the picture is that a Dept can be renamed without change of function, or change function without renaming.

The 2018 renaming of the "Dept of Health" to "Dept of Health and Social Care" was the former: rebranding without change of scope. You can check it for yourself at Article of The Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Transfer of Functions (Commonhold Land) Order 2018: "The functions of the Secretary of State for Health are transferred to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care". The reason was simply that Social Care had become a higher political priority, so the extra words were added to the shopfront.

So I agree with @Armbrust. Just apply C2D, and use the current name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Nope, I'd still oppose the C2D - Health remains the WP:COMMONNAME, speaking as a Brit who lives in the UK and who has worked for government departments. Social care is a bit of a weird one as it's one of the major "government" services that's not delivered by central government, but by local government. So historically there was just a small organising role in Whitehall that ended up with whatever department was responsible for local government (and some bits were part of Education), although in recent years the health department had absorbed some of those functions (for instance professional regulation of social workers was transferred in 2012 from memory). Even today both the Secretary of State for Education and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families are explicitly responsible for children's social care, and the Minister for Local Government is responsible for adult social care, whereas the health secretary has no explicit mandate for social care other than as the boss of both the Minister of State for Care who oversees adult social care and integration with the NHS, and the Minister for Suicide (!). So the delivery of social care is in the hands of local authorities, and Whitehall's supervision of it is split between three departments - that's not the reason I'd oppose the C2D but it helps to explain why social care is not part of the COMMONNAME, and why it just feels really wrong to categorise historical ministers/SoS's as being responsible for social care. So I'd still support the C2B and oppose the C2D. If you want to take the C2D to CfD then I'm OK with that, but let's do the easy C2B first.Le Deluge (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Le Deluge, sorry, but I think you are way overcomplicating something quite simple. Your insistence on analysing the roles ignores the fact that roles repeatedly shift without a change in title, and titles change without a change of role. It also seems to amount to WP:OR, because the substance of your objection seem to be that the govt's own choice of title is wrong. Apart from being a breach of policy, that approach is a recipe for madness; there are countless other cases to argue, such as the Dept of The Environent, whose main responsibility for two decades was actually local govt; the environment was a small part of its brief.

I could see a case for a rule of one-job-title-per-category, but the roles of a dept are simply way too fluid to base the decision on role. If we go down that path, the result will be be masses of detailed analysis of the role of each govt dept throughout history so that we can split categories in all sots of ways. That would e.g. mean subcatting the Home Office into dozens of fragments as it shed functions. That would be a pain for navigation, which after all is the main point of categories

So I will take it to a full CFD ... with regret, because it all seems like a huge drain on editorial time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I explicitly said my objection was not based on analysing the roles. As you say, there's no point in micromanaging it, it makes sense to have people who have broadly had the same job to all be in the same category, on WP:SMALLCAT grounds if nothing else. The problem is then what name to use - and I am suggesting using the WP:COMMONNAME for the job. As a Brit and former British civil servant, it just seems weird, illogical and wrong to categorise people like Alan Johnson and Virginia Bottomley as being Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care.Le Deluge (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: It is not, and never has been, practice to categorise govt ministers by COMMONNAME. See Category:British Secretaries of State, where in each case the formal title is used. As I wrote above, either split the category on the change of name, or use the current title.

I have created and populated Category:Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Imperial election (Holy Roman Empire) to Category:Imperial election – C2B, C2D (unnecessary disambiguator). Incorrectly moved the other way at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 15, see Talk:Imperial election. —Kusma (t·c) 10:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedily reverting the result of a full discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Kusma: I agree with @Armbrust. It would be outrageous to simply overturn without further discussion a consensus reached only 4 months ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: There doesn't seem to be anything worth discussing, so I didn't start a discussion. I don't know much about categories these days, so I am happy to leave as is (with the article at the correct name and the category having an unnecessary disambiguator), but thought I'd point out the inconsistency in case anyone cares. —Kusma (t·c) 12:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Bubbles to Category:Bubbles (physics) – C2D per Bubble (physics). Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  Per WP:CATNAME categories are generally in the plural form so should be Category:Bubbles (physics). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Realized the pattern of category names after the fact (I have yet to recently review WP:CATNAME), so thus I’ve updated the request. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  Note to closing admin: please disambiguate the old name after renaming. – Fayenatic London 23:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  Put this on hold pending the RM to rename the main article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Armbrust: The move discussion has been closed to "no consensus to move". Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  In that case C2D doesn't apply. ("This criterion also does not apply if [...] if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result.) Thus I oppose speedy. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Airport rail links in London to Category:Airport rail links in the London region; more accurate description, as most airports serving London are technically outside London but considered to be in the London Region; will also be consistent with parent Category:Airports in the London region Cnbrb (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose. @Cnbrb: there is no Category:London region. The parent cat should be renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Comment: true, but then how should the parent category be renamed? It presents the problem that Gatwick, Luton and Stansted airports are not themselves in Greater London, so how are they to be sensibly categorised? London region is understandable to the reader, and I'm not sure that it follows that there must be a London region category. The word "in" is perhaps problematic - "Airports serving London" might work, but it is not consistent with the other categories in Category:Airports by city. Cnbrb (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Cnbrb: Category:Airports by city is a bit of a mess. It contains several categories which are not by city, e.g. Category:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area relates to San Francisco Bay Area.

  It seems to me that the best solution would probably be to rename the lot to Category:Airports serving Foo. That would be better than inventing a region, with is what has happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  How would you define "serving"? Some airports have a practical catchment area of multiple cities and then there's the annoying habit of rebranding some distant little airport to include the name of a major city that's nowhere near - to take a couple of extreme examples, does "Paris-Vatry (Disney)" serve Paris? Does "London Oxford" serve London? Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Fair point, Timrollpickering.

  But the current name puts Oxford in the "London Region", which is also nonsense.

  So I wonder if the answer isn't more fundamental: that the whole concept of Category:Airports by city is broken, because airports are a) often outside the city limits, and b) usually serve huge catchment areas.

  For example, Heathrow and Gatwick are pretty much national airports for England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Looks like I've inadvertently opened a can of worms! Well, some interesting comments here. I agree that Category:Airports by city should be revisited, and I agree with @User:BrownHairedGirl to go for Category:Airports serving Foo. Yes, airports do also serve other towns or regions, but the common understanding is that an airport is associated with a large city like London or San Francisco. "Airports serving London" makes immediate sense to the reader. And yes, in southern England there is now a tendency for some regional airports to rebrand themselves with the "London" name to make themselves seem more attractive ("London Oxford"), and while I agree that this is a bit tenuous, I don't think Wikipedia should pass judgement on how ridiculous these may be. There may be some grey areas, but we can work around those. Cnbrb (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  It goes a lot further than southern England and also isn't always the airports themselves - sometimes airlines tack on the name of a popular city without mentioning the lengthy connection (just google "London Prestwick" for one of the more notorious cases) and in both the examples given above the city name isn't actually in the formal name of the airport. Invariably there would have to be judgement because different sources will say different things. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Cnbrb: sorry to be annoying, but I think that @Timrollpickering has effectively demolished my suggestion of a Category:Airports serving Foo. I think he has demonstrated very clearly that it wouldn't be viable without masses of WP:OR by editors.

  So I think that the only solution is to categorise airports by their actual location, according to whatever geographical categories we use for other topics. It seems to be the only way of avoiding either a) using madey-uppy geography like "London Region", or b) encouraging editors to make slews of subjective judgements about marketing claims.

  Europe's biggest airline Ryanair systematically associates airports with cities which can be up to 3 hours travel away. Their efforts alone would make any such category tree a nightmare of editorial disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  I appreciate the arguments, but this outcome will create the situation where Gatwick Airport will not be categorised as a London airport, but as a Surrey airport, when it is in every common understanding London Gatwick Airport. I don't know how we can square that particular circle, except to create a categorisation scheme that is not intuitive to the reader. All I can think of is to create list pages in their place.Cnbrb (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  Lists sounds like the way to go, @Cnbrb. Every alternative seems flawed in one way or another.

A List of airports serving London could add a lot more info than a category conveys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So the (unintended) upshot of all the above discussion is that Category:Airports by city needs to be deleted and all child categories need to be renamed or removed. It sounds like that needs a fresh CFD entry. Anyone want to sort that out? Cnbrb (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Going back on-topic - I have no problem with Category:Airport rail links in London - the question is not whether the airport is in London, but one end of the rail link. View it as a daughter of Category:Railway lines in London or something, the airport bit is not relevant. Going back to the "serving" question - London region is not a thing, it redirects to Greater London which is not what's intended. Not least because eg Heathrow serves Swindon and Coventry as much as it serves Beckenham. The "reach" of big airports really doesn't map well to individual cities, it can be entire countries or at least NUTS1-sized regions (and Heathrow reaches several such regions, as Greater London is one on its own). I'd suggest the best approach would probably be to make international airports in (country or possibly NUTS1/state) as a subset of airports in (country or possibly NUTS1/state), to avoid the subjectivity of "serving"?Le Deluge (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Serology templates to Category:Serology navigational boxes – C2B: Category seems to have been intended as a navbox category and all of its members are indeed serology-related navboxes, but the current title does not clarify that. It reads like it is for Serology templates in general. Please move this category.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Template:SerotypeA normal and Template:SerotypeC normall are not navigational boxes. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Fictional characters with energy manipulation powers to Category:Fictional characters with energy abilities – C2c, in agreement with many subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability; even those that do not do not follow this naming convention. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Partial oppose. Category:Fictional characters with energy-manipulation abilities would be a better name. Not only does it follow similar categories, but it also clarifies its subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  Or perhaps Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate energy... as you noted, there does not seem to be an accepted convention in Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. Either way, I think this is not straightforward enough for CFD/S; a full nomination would be more suited. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Defunct organisations based in Oman to Category:Defunct organizations based in Oman – C2C: Per parents Category:Organizations based in Oman and Category:Defunct organizations by country. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Weak oppose - Oman has strong historical ties to the UK, so the parent should probably be renamed to Category:Organisations based in Oman. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Burial sites of Royal families of Sweden to Category:Burial sites of Swedish royal families – WP:C2C: Category:Burial sites of European royal families. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy Subcategory of Category:Royal families of Sweden. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Balti dynasty to Category:Balt dynasty – C2D. Citations provided for new name at article. Srnec (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy Only recently moved and without discussion, thus C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:People from Tendring (district) to Category:People from Tendring District – C2D per Tendring District, for the same reasons as Gedling. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Category:People from Tandridge (district) to Category:People from Tandridge District – C2D per Tandridge District, for the same reasons as Gedling. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Category:People from Gedling (district) to Category:People from the Borough of Gedling – C2D per Borough of Gedling, see the recent RM. Note that Category:Gedling is a combined category for both the village and district, similar to Category:Rotherham. Category:People from Gedling should be created for the village if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  For the 3 above, are the villages and districts coterminous? If not, why are their categories combined? And if they should remain combined, should we not follow the parent categories' naming conventions—i.e. Category:People from Gedling, Category:People from Tandridge, Category:People from Tendring? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  No the districts cover a far larger area than the villages[4]. Although separate categories for the villages and districts are unlikely to be needed anytime soon (few villages at all have cats at all, let alone those that share the name with a district). However its more likely that separate categories will be created for the people from categories, see Category:Blaby for example which also has Category:People from Blaby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose if the parent categories (Category:Gedling, Category:Tandridge & Category:Tendring) are not renamed too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Why do you oppose? The current names of the people from don't match either the category or article, as noted the main categories probably don't need renaming since I doubt we need separate parent categories for both village and district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  The category for the smaller entity shouldn't contain people of the larger entity. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Well both the smaller and larger entity have 1 main category with the shorter names. However as noted its more common to have "people from..." categories for smaller places so we could just preform the renames and leave titles like Category:People from Gedling available for just the village. However I don't really object to moving them to Category:People from Gedling and adding Category:People by city or town in England to that CAT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with Armbrust, a category for the village shouldn't contain a category for the district. Category:People from Gedling would be an elegant solution if everyone in the category is from the village of Gedling and not from other parts of the district. If that is not the case, I would recommend splitting Category:Gedling to create a separate category for the district (Category:Borough of Gedling) and then placing the "People from" category therein. If there is not enough content to justify two separate categories, then we should merge everything to the district level. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  Its normal for a settlement and administrative diversion to have a single category for (at least some levels) even if there are separate articles. Compare Rotherham/Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham which shares a single Category:Rotherham. But there are separate Category:People from the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham and Category:People from Rotherham. As noted I would recommend creating Category:People from Gedling but I doubt we need Category:Gedling and Category:Borough of Gedling since its unlikely that there is sufficient articles to split them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Just for clarification, is discussion occurring somewhere other than this page? This section is usually for "other discussion" at locations outside of CfD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  Moved these back to opposed section, as there is indeed no discussion some where else. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

• None currently

Moved to full discussion

• Category:Archbishops of Western Europe to Category:Archbishops of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe – WP:C2D. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy The main article of the category is Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe and not Archbishop of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe (which isn't even a redirect). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  The current name is not appropriate either. I suppose this needs a full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Chicbyaccident and Armbrust: Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Research organisations in Qatar to Category:Research institutes in Qatar – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Subcategory of Category:Research organizations by country. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Moved to full discussion by nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Draft dodgers to Category:Draft evaders – C2D: Article and main category is Draft evasion, which is less pejorative. Rathfelder (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy IMO that's too much of a difference from the main article to C2D to apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  I support the change in terminology but C2D does not apply to set categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  Support rationale for change in terminology, but take to full CFD. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  Strongly support the change in title. Regarding Armbrust's and hopefully also Black Falcon's points above, the main article itself recognizes "draft dodger" as a sometimes pejorative synonym for "draft evader" (second paragraph). In some settings in the USA, the term "draft dodger" is a major insult! While this term may be more innocently used in some scholarly literature (and in Europe?), I see no reason for WP to continue labeling a category with a term that will strike many viewers as POV, particularly when a neutral alternative term is at hand. - Babel41 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Moved to full discussion by nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Civic and political organizations of China to Category:Political organizations in China – C2C: None of these organisations are "civic" Rathfelder (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy. How does this fall under C2C? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  Moved to full discussion by nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:McClatchy publications to Category:The McClatchy Company publications – C2B: per The McClatchy Company/Category:The McClatchy Company. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy for same reason above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Now at full discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:People educated at Silverdale School (Sheffield) to Category:People educated at Silverdale School, Sheffield – C2B per WP:UKPLACE which is the standard format for English schools. The article is at Silverdale School but that's ambiguous (Silverdale School (disambiguation)) so can't use C2D. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy WP:UKPLACE doesn't mention schools. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  It does not specifically but this is the usual format, as can be seen from the other categories and articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 13#English schools. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Category:People educated at Roedean School, England to Category:People educated at Roedean School, East Sussex – C2B per WP:UKPLACE, we generally use the county, not country in England, unless there is overlap in the name (Lincoln/Lincolnshire) or the place is in more than 1 county (Bures), the article is at Roedean School, but there is Roedean School (South Africa) so it can't be moved per C2D as its ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy WP:UKPLACE doesn't mention schools. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  It doesn't mention them specifically, but deals with places in general. It specifically states "Disambiguation should not normally be to England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland" this is simply because the category, but not (presumably) the article requires disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Armbrust: Could you clarify if you withdraw you're opposition. As noted the current names are inconsistent with the usual NC. In the case of the Roedean School category either it should be disambiguated with "East Sussex" or moved to Category:People educated at Roedean School (which would need to be done at CFD due to being ambiguous). The Sheffield one should either be comma disambiguated or (similar to Roedean School be moved to the base name). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: The usual naming convention seems to be to used the main articles name. So still oppose both. Ps.: Current name chosen in this CFD. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 13#English schools. @Armbrust: sorry I missed that there was a prior CFD which means it can't use CFDS anyway similar to those I listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 20#Districts of England which should have been uncontroversial but had been through CFD before. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 13 December 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.