Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: Difference between revisions
fix indent & 2 rationale | move 1 to full discussion |
→Opposed nominations: comment |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
* [[:Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia]] to [[:Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia]] – C2D. [[User:Androoox|Androoox]] ([[User talk:Androoox|talk]]) 01:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
* [[:Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia]] to [[:Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia]] – C2D. [[User:Androoox|Androoox]] ([[User talk:Androoox|talk]]) 01:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
*:'''Oppose'''. {{ping|Androoox}} Fails C2D; head article is neither stable at current title nor moved by a [[WP:RM]] discussion.<br />Article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provinces_of_Saudi_Arabia&action=history moved on 4 January 2014] from {{noredirect|Provinces of Saudi Arabia}} on {{noredirect|Regions of Saudi Arabia}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
*:'''Oppose'''. {{ping|Androoox}} Fails C2D; head article is neither stable at current title nor moved by a [[WP:RM]] discussion.<br />Article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provinces_of_Saudi_Arabia&action=history moved on 4 January 2014] from {{noredirect|Provinces of Saudi Arabia}} on {{noredirect|Regions of Saudi Arabia}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
*:: '''Comment''' {{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} Androoox began to empty the category outside of process. [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup>[[User talk:Armbrust|<font color="#E3A857">The</font> <font color="#008000">Homunculus</font>]]</sup> 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* [[:Category:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles]] to [[:Category:WikiProject Beyoncé]] – C2D per [[WP:WikiProject Beyoncé]] and consensus at [[Talk:Beyoncé#Requested move 9|Talk:Beyoncé]]. '''[[User:Mayast|<font color="#0dacd0">Ma</font><font color="#1a7fa7">y</font><font color="#0dacd0">ast</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mayast|<font color="#bae30b">talk</font>]]) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) |
* [[:Category:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles]] to [[:Category:WikiProject Beyoncé]] – C2D per [[WP:WikiProject Beyoncé]] and consensus at [[Talk:Beyoncé#Requested move 9|Talk:Beyoncé]]. '''[[User:Mayast|<font color="#0dacd0">Ma</font><font color="#1a7fa7">y</font><font color="#0dacd0">ast</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mayast|<font color="#bae30b">talk</font>]]) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:41, 12 February 2014
Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|newname}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not processed that do not meet the criteria.
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 for these. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly, as it is a variation on G7.
Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions there.
Speedy criteria
The category-specific criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
This page in a nutshell: Under certain limited conditions, a page may be deleted by an administrator without waiting for any discussion. |
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other deletions occur only after discussion, unless they are proposed deletions. Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.[1] Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates, but only administrators may actually delete.
Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion). A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors. If a page needs to be removed from Wikipedia for privacy reasons (e.g. non-public personal information, a child disclosing their age, possible libel), request oversight instead.
For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, C1 or U1.[2]
Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.
Besides speedy deletion, there are the following methods of deletion:
- Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (AfD, CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD, TfD), the normal method of carrying out deletion.
- Wikipedia:Proposed deletions, for nominating articles and files for uncontroversial deletion.
- Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, for articles on living persons without sources.
Nomenclature
Letter-number abbreviations (G12, A3...) are often used to refer to these criteria, and are given in each section. For example, "CSD G12" refers to criterion 12 under general (copyright infringement) and "CSD U1" refers to criterion 1 under user (user request). Some in-between numbers are skipped, as abbreviations denoting obsolete criteria remain unused. These abbreviations can be confusing to new editors or anyone else unfamiliar with this page; in many situations a plain-English explanation of why a specific page was or should be deleted is preferable.
Requesting speedy deletion
Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media files for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators to the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (but see § Pages that need to be tagged in a special manner below). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as Db-X with Db standing for 'delete because'. A list of the Db-X templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates.
If a page falls under more than one of the criteria, instead of adding multiple tags it is possible to add a single {{Db-multiple}} tag to cover them all. For example, if an article seems both to be blatantly promotional (G11) and also to fail to indicate significance of its subject (A7) then the tag {{Db-multiple|G11|A7}}
can be used to indicate both of these concerns. The article can then be speedily deleted if an administrator assesses it and decides that either or both of the criteria apply.
There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed before). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G5, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}
, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd
with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7).
Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria.
Pages that need to be tagged in a special manner
Some pages either cannot or should not be tagged for speedy deletion in the normal manner:
- Pages that you cannot edit (e.g., due to protection), or JSON pages: place the template on the corresponding Talk page instead, along with an explanation of which page to delete.
- Template: pages: place the template within a noinclude tag, like this:
<noinclude>{{Db-x}}</noinclude>
- Module: pages (except for /doc pages): place the template with Module:Module wikitext, like this:
require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{Db-x}}')
- CSS (including sanitized CSS) or JavaScript pages: place the template in a comment, like this:
/* {{Db-x}} */
Pages that have survived deletion discussions
As an exception to the norm that a page surviving its most recent deletion discussion means that it should not be speedily deleted, the following criteria apply also to those pages, with or without any specified limitations:
- § G5. Creations by banned or blocked users – subject to the strict condition that the XfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked
- § G6. Technical deletions – only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed
- § G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
- § G9. Office actions
- § G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement
- § G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions – if 6 months have passed since the deletion discussion and any subsequent human edits
- § F8. Files available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons – if the image did not exist on Commons at the time of the FfD
- § F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement
- § U1. User request
These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. However, newly discovered copyright violations should be tagged for G12 if the violation existed in all previous revisions of the article. G5 may be also used at discretion, subject to meeting the criterion outlined above.
General
These apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc. Read the specifics for each criterion to see where and how they apply.
G1. Patent nonsense
This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism, hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. It also does not apply to pages in the user namespace.
G2. Test pages
This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates.
G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes
This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax.
- {{Db-g3}}, {{Db-vandalism}} – for vandalism
- {{Db-hoax}} – for hoaxes
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as vandalism, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as hoaxes
G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[3] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies.[4] It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted[5] to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.
- {{Db-g4}}, {{Db-repost}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion
G5. Creations by banned or blocked users
This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.
- To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.
- For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
- When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
- G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.
- {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users
G6. Technical deletions
This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including:
- Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
- Deleting redirects or other pages which prevent page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect or page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it.
- Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, or redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended.
- Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
- {{Db-g6|rationale=reason}} – If none of the special tags below applies, this tag should be used with a reason specified in the
|rationale=
parameter. - {{Db-copypaste|page to be moved}} – for cut-and-paste page moves that need to be temporarily deleted to make room for a clean page move.
- {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move.
- {{Db-moved}} – for pages that were holding up a page move, until they were moved out of the way by a page mover.
- {{Db-afc-move|Draft:page to be moved}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move as a result of an Articles for creation (AFC) review, typically for articles in draft space.
- {{Db-xfd|fullvotepage=link to closed deletion discussion}} – for pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted.
- {{Db-error}} – for pages obviously created in error.
- Category:Candidates for technical speedy deletion
G7. Author requests deletion
If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.[6] If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale.
- {{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user (same category as U1)
G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
Examples include, but are not limited to:
- Talk pages with no corresponding subject page
- Subpages with no parent page
- File pages without a corresponding file
- TimedText pages without a corresponding file (or when the file has been moved to Commons)
- Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted
- Editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages
- Categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates
This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular:
- Deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere
- User talk pages
- Talk page archives (except article talk page archives where the corresponding article and main talk page have been deleted and the page is not otherwise useful to Wikipedia – check for page-moves and merges before using G8 on article-talk-page-archives; the parent article might still exist under a different name)
- Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move or retargeting (these should instead be retargeted to their target's new name), except where R2 speedy deletion would then immediately apply if they were fixed (e.g., redirects to articles that have been draftified)
- Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets
- User subpages
- Talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons
- Pages that should be moved to a different location[7]
Exceptions may be sign-posted with the template {{G8-exempt}}.
- {{Db-g8}} – for cases not covered by any of the special tags below
- {{Db-imagepage}} – for file description pages with no corresponding file
- {{Db-redirnone}} – for pages that redirect to nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion
- {{Db-subpage}} – for subpages of nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion
- {{Db-talk}} – for talk pages of nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion
- {{Db-templatecat}} – for categories populated by a deleted or retargeted template
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as broken redirects
G9. Office actions
In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page. Deletions of this type must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation.
G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Other pages violating the Biographies of living persons policy might be eligible for deletion under the conditions stipulated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead.
Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL.
- {{Db-g10}}, {{Db-attack}}, {{Db-attackorg}}, {{Db-personal attack}}
- {{Db-negublp}} – for articles about living persons that are unsourced, entirely negative in tone, and have no neutral version to revert to
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
- {{Db-g11}}, {{Db-promo}}, {{Db-spam}}
- {{Db-spamuser}} – for userpages used only for publicity and promotion, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam
G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement
This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section here, which has more specific instructions.
- {{Db-g12|url=source URL}}, {{Db-copyvio|url=source URL}}
- Note: If other criteria apply in addition to G12, the template {{Db-multiple}} should be used instead, so we do not waste time seeking copyright permission after deleting the page.
- {{Db-multiple|g12|url=source URL|other criteria}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations (same category as F9)
G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions
This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:
- Draft namespace,
- Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
- Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.
Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion.[8] Adding a CSD template to a page does not reset the six-month clock, but removing a CSD template does.[9] Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.
- {{Db-g13}}, {{Db-afc}}, {{db-blankdraft}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions
G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages
This applies to the following disambiguation pages and redirects:
- Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
- Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
- A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page.
- {{Db-g14}}, {{Db-disambig}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages
Articles
These criteria apply only to pages in the article (main) namespace. They do not apply to redirects. For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
A1. No context
This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.[10] Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." It applies only to very short articles. Note that context is different from content, treated in A3. This excludes coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created.[11]
A2. Foreign-language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project
This applies to articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project. If the article is not the same as an article on another project, use the template {{Not English}}
instead, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation.
- {{Db-a2}}, {{Db-foreign}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as existing on foreign Wikimedia projects
A3. No content
This applies to articles consisting only of external links, category tags or "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, questions that should have been asked at a noticeboard, chat-like comments, template tags, or images. This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content, or no content at all. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. This criterion excludes poor writing, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created.[11]
- {{Db-a3}}, {{Db-nocontent}}, {{Db-contact}}
- {{Db-empty}} – context-specific version: calls {{Db-c1}} for categories, and {{Db-a3}} everywhere else.
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty articles
A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event[12] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[13] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
- {{Db-a7}}
- {{Db-person}} – for people
- {{Db-band}} – for bands
- {{Db-club}} – for clubs, societies and groups
- {{Db-inc}} – for commercial and non-commercial organizations
- {{Db-web}} – for web content
- {{Db-animal}} – for individual animals
- {{Db-event}} – for events
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted (same as A9)
A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)
This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles.
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
- {{Db-a9}}, {{Db-album}}, {{Db-song}}, {{Db-discog}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted (same as A7)
A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic
This applies to any recently created[14] article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia article, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages.
The title chosen for the vast majority of duplicate articles will be a plausible misspelling of, or alternative name for, the existing article, and a redirect should be created instead of deletion. This criterion should, accordingly, only be used rarely, and only for pages whose titles are not plausible redirects.
A11. Obviously invented
This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: This is not intended for hoaxes (see CSD G3).[15]
- {{Db-a11}}, {{Db-invented}}, {{Db-madeup}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as obviously invented
Redirects
These criteria apply to redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace, with exclusions listed for specific criteria. For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
R2. Cross-namespace redirects
This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.
- See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and MOS:LINKSTYLE.
- {{Db-r2}}, {{Db-rediruser}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects
R3. Recently created, implausible typos
This applies to recently created[14] redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are some redirects in other languages. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move,[6] unless the moved page was also recently created. It also does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects, including redirects created by merges,[16] or to redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page.
R4. File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages
This applies to redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons).
- {{Db-r4}}, {{Db-redircom}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as file redirects shadowing Wikimedia Commons files
Other issues with redirects
For redirects that end in "(disambiguation)", see G14.
For redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedily deleted. In some cases it may be possible to make a useful redirect by changing the target instead of deleting it. Redirects that do not work because of software limitations, such as redirects to special pages or to pages on other wikis, may be converted to soft redirects if they have a non-trivial history or other valid uses.
For reversal of redirects, use {{Db-move}}
, a special case of {{Db-g6}}
.
Files
Note: These criteria formerly began with I (e.g. I1, I6, I9) but have since been replaced with F, without the actual criteria being changed. This was because the file namespace was formerly known as the image namespace.
For any images and other media that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.
F1. Redundant
This applies to unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format. This excludes images in the Wikimedia Commons; for these, see criterion F8.[17]
- {{Db-f1|replacement file name.ext}}, {{Db-redundantfile|replacement file name.ext}}, {{isd|replacement file name.ext}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redundant files
F2. Corrupt, missing or empty file
This applies to files that are corrupt, missing, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information.[18] This also includes file description pages for Commons files that do not include information that is specific to English Wikipedia (like {{FeaturedPicture}}
).[19]
F3. Improper license
This criterion is used to flag media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". These may be deleted, unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. Files uploaded after 1 August 2021 licensed under versions of the GFDL earlier than 1.3, without allowing for later versions or other licenses, may be deleted.
- {{Db-f3}}, {{Db-noncom}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with unacceptable licenses
F4. Lack of licensing information
This applies to media files lacking the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status after being identified as such for seven days. Administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself for a source before deleting under this criterion.
- {{subst:nsd}} – no source
- {{subst:nld}} – no license
- {{subst:nsdnld}} – neither source nor license
- Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source, Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
F5. Orphaned non-free use files
This applies to images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain and that are not used in any article. These may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. This includes previous revisions of the image or files overwritten by copyright violations. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.
- {{Db-f5}} – for immediate F5 deletions
- {{subst:Orfud}} – for files
- {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free use files
F6. Missing non-free use rationale
This applies to non-free files claiming fair use but without a use rationale. These may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days. The boilerplate copyright tags setting out fair use criteria do not constitute a rationale. This criterion does not apply to situations where a use rationale is provided but is disputed.
F7. Invalid fair-use claim
- Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately.
- Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with
{{subst:Rnfu}}
may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image. - Invalid fair-use claims tagged with
{{subst:Dnfu}}
may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.
- {{Db-f7}}, {{Db-badfairuse}} – for immediate F7 deletions
- {{subst:Rnfu}} – replaceable with free images
- {{subst:Dnfu}} – disputed non-free use rationales
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with clearly invalid fair-use claims
F8. Files available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons
Provided the following conditions are met:
- The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution.
- The file's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons. To avoid deletion at Commons, please ensure the Commons page description has all of the following:
- Name and date of death of the creator of the artistic work represented by the file, or else clear evidence that a free license was given. If anonymous, ensure the page description provides evidence that establishes the anonymous status.
- Country where the artistic work represented by the file was situated, or where it was first published.
- Date when the artistic work represented by the file was created or first published, depending on the copyright law of the origin country.
- All file revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.
- The file is not marked as
{{Do not move to Commons}}
or as{{Keep local}}
. - All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages (the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended).
- If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the file description page (like
{{FeaturedPicture}}
), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion.
- If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the file description page (like
- If the file is available on Commons under a different name than locally, all local references to the image must be updated to point to the title used at Commons.
- The file is not protected. Do not delete protected images, even if there is an identical copy on Commons, unless the image is no longer in use (check what links here). They are usually locally uploaded and protected here since they are used in the interface or in some widely used high-risk template. Deleting the local copy of an image used in the interface does break things. More about high-risk images.
{{C-uploaded}}
images and other files may be speedily deleted as soon as they are off the Main Page.- {{Db-f8}}, {{Now Commons}}, {{Now Commons|File:name of file on Commons.ext}}
- Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons
F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement
This applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images will not be released under such a license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{Db-filecopyvio}}
template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion.
- {{Db-f9|url=URL of source}}, {{Db-filecopyvio|url=URL of source}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations
F11. No evidence of permission
If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, television images, album covers, logos that are not simple enough to be public domain, etc.) should be speedily deleted per reason F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement), unless fair-use can be claimed. Files tagged with {{Permission pending}} for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criterion. (Please note that the backlog for messages sent to the permissions-en queue is currently 0 days. You may wish to wait at least this amount of time before tagging VRT pending images for deletion.) Files tagged {{Permission received}} whose permissions have not been confirmed after 30 days may be deleted immediately under this criterion, without waiting an additional seven days, provided a check of the ticket is performed by a VRT agent to confirm that no further interaction is ongoing.
Categories
For any category pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
C1. Unpopulated categories
This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven 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. cleanup categories, or Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Possibly empty category}} (or, for administrative categories, {{Wikipedia category}}) at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.
- {{Db-c1}}, {{db-catempty}}.
- Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, and after seven days Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories
C2. Speedy renaming and merging
Assorted sub-criteria that are used only at WP:CFDS; please see that page for details and instructions.
User pages
These criteria apply only to pages in the User: and User talk: namespaces. For any user pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
U1. User request
Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. This also includes editnotices for user pages. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. Pages which have previously been moved are only eligible if all previous titles were in the user's userspace. Note: The template does not display on certain pages (such as .css and .js pages), but its categorization will work.
U2. Nonexistent user
This applies to user pages, user subpages, and user talk pages of users that do not exist on the English Wikipedia (check Special:ListUsers), except user pages for IP users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's user page, and redirects created due to a user being renamed. Pages of users who exist on other WMF wikis but do not have local accounts are eligible for deletion.[20]
Before placing one of the following templates or deleting a page under this criterion, consider whether moving the page to another location, such as a sub-page of the user page of the primary contributor, is preferable to deletion.
- {{Db-u2}}, {{Db-nouser}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user
U5. A non-contributor's misuse of Wikipedia as a web host
Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?. It applies regardless of the age of the page in question.
Before placing this template or deleting a page under this criterion:
- Read Wikipedia:User pages § Handling inappropriate content and Wikipedia:User pages § Deletion of user pages.
- Consider blanking pages with a significant history unrelated to the content that is being deleted.
- For draft articles that are on a user's main page and which do not otherwise qualify for speedy deletion, consider moving it to a sub-page.
- {{Db-u5}}, {{Db-notwebhost}}
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations
Exceptional circumstances
These temporary criteria apply to large scale cleanups of problematic pages that would overwhelm the normal deletion processes. Criteria should be deprecated when no longer needed.
X3. Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation
Examples: "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, nor does it apply if the redirect contains substantive page history (e.g. from a merge). Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:
- Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
- Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version
Non-criteria
Commonly denied CSD reasons
The following proposals for new speedy deletion criteria are frequently raised, but have repeatedly failed to gain consensus:
- How-to articles
- Essay articles
- Expansion of A7, A9 and A11 to include books, software, schools and/or other subjects
- Neologisms
- Unsourced articles
A7, A9 and A11 scope
A7, A9 and A11 do not apply to any other subject that does not indicate importance. Expanding the scope of A7, A9 and A11 to different subjects (such as products, software, books, schools, etc.) have been proposed several times in the past and failed to gain consensus. Amongst the reasons for those rejections were that such subjects are not created often enough to require speedy deletion (such articles can be handled by proposed deletion or by listing the article at articles for deletion), that such subjects cannot be objectively covered in A7, A9 and A11's wording and that admins are not able to assess claims of importance for certain subjects. Before proposing a change to A7, A9 and A11 to expand their scope, please check whether your proposal has not already been discussed on the talk page (archives).
The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion:
- Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or essays. Wikipedia is not: "a dictionary", "an indiscriminate collection of information", "a crystal ball", "a how-to list"; or essays like Wikipedia:Listcruft, Wikipedia:Obscure topics, Wikipedia:Deny recognition,...; are not valid reasons for speedy deletion.
- Less-obvious hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism.
- Original research. It is not always easy to tell whether an article consists of material that violates the policy against novel theories or interpretations or is simply unsourced.
- Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant.
- Failure to assert importance but not an A7, A9 or A11 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7, A9 or A11 under those criteria. Nor does it apply for neologisms that do not meet A11 because new specialized terms should have a wider hearing.
- Author deletion requests made in bad faith. Author deletion requests made in bad faith, out of frustration, after others have contributed substantially (because the work of others is involved) or in an attempt to revoke their freely-licensed contributions are not granted. However, anyone may request deletion of pages in their userspace.
- Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply.
- Copies that are not copyright violations. If content appears both here and somewhere else (possibly in modified form), consider the possibility that Wikipedia's is the original version and the other site copied from Wikipedia's version. Alternatively, the same author may have written both versions, or the original may be free content.
- PNG / GIF files replaced by JPEG images. JPEG encoding discards information that may be important later. Do not delete the original PNG / GIF files.
- Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain.
- User and user talk pages of IP addresses. Although users are encouraged to create Wikipedia accounts, unregistered users are still allowed to edit Wikipedia, and are identified by their IP addresses. If an unregistered user has a static IP address, it may have a user page and/or user talk page associated with it, and even for non-static IP addresses, the history can contain important discussions or information that may be of interest.
- An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. It may be reconsidered after translation whether the article merits deletion, retention or improvement by means of a suitable tag. However, if it already exists on another Wikimedia project, it might be speedily deletable under criterion A2.
- Subject request. Sometimes somebody claiming to be the subject of a biographical article requests deletion of the article, or even blanks the article. Article subjects do not have an automatic right to have their articles deleted. Nor does such a criterion apply to namespaces other than article space: for example, pages in the Wikipedia namespace devoted to a discussion about a particular editor. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs
- Orphaned pages or redirects. A page cannot be deleted just because no other pages link to it. This includes redirects – even if 'What links here' returns nothing, a redirect may be a likely search phrase, or have links to it from outside Wikipedia.
- Redirects that are poorly targeted. A redirect should not be deleted just because its target is incorrect or confusing. Instead, change the redirect to a better target. If you're not sure where it should be targeted, open a discussion at Redirects for discussion.
- Drafts covering the same topic as an existing mainspace article. These are not valid deletions under A10 (due to not being articles) nor G6. They can be replaced with a redirect to the mainspace article if necessary.
Procedure for administrators
Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. Also, in general the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified.
Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, or there was actually a cut-and-paste move involved. Also:
- The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page.
- The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page.
- The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it on good reason.
- What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be re-created, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.
If speedy deletion is inappropriate for a page:
- Please remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. Doing so will automatically remove the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
- Consider notifying the nominator, using {{speedy-decline}} or {{uw-csd}}. (If you're using CSD Helper, it will usually notify the nominator for you; it will normally use its own notification template.)
When deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, please specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, so that it will be recorded into the deletion log. Quoting page content in the deletion summary may be helpful, but must not be done for attack content or copyrighted text. In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion.
Twinkle or CSDHelper can be used to process nominations more quickly and smoothly. When processing a nomination:
- Twinkle can delete the page.
- Twinkle can notify the page creator if the page is deleted.
- CSDH can delete the page, convert the nomination into a PROD nomination, or decline the nomination.
- CSDH can notify the nominator if the nomination is converted or declined.
Obsolete
In the past, criteria beginning with the following letters were used:
- "P" for portals
- "T" for templates and modules
All criteria in these groups have been obsoleted; as such, these groups are not currently in use. Some criteria in the active groups were also used in the past but are no longer valid. They are kept here for historical reference and to preserve numbering. Two of the repealed criteria did not have consensus before being enacted, and two were meant to be temporary. The remainder were merged into broader criteria or deprecated entirely.
- A4. Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title
- Merged with and later superseded by "No content" (A3) in November 2005[21] as part of a bold rewrite that was made to simplify the CSD criterion (archived discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3).
- A5. Transwikied articles
- Was repealed in December 2022 due to lack of use (unopposed proposal). Instead, use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Deleted articles that are temporarily restored to allow for a transwiki can be re-deleted under "technical deletion" (G6).
- A6. Attack articles
- Superseded by "Attack pages" (G10) in March 2006 (discussion).
- A8. Blatant copyright infringement articles
- Superseded by "Unambiguous copyright infringement" (G12) in October 2006 (unopposed proposal).
- R1. Redirects to non-existent pages
- Merged into "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8) in September 2008 (discussion).
- F7a. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag
- Repealed in March 2021 due to the problem being easily surmountable (discussion). Instead, the invalid tag should be corrected. Once the tag is corrected, other speedy deletion criteria may apply.
- F10. Useless non-media files
- Deprecated in favor of proposed deletion in February 2023 following rare usage and added technical restrictions on what file types can be uploaded (discussion).
- C3. Categories solely populated from a template
- Merged into "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8) in October 2008 (discussion).
- T1. Divisive and inflammatory templates
- Enacted by Jimbo Wales without formally assessing consensus during the userbox wars. Was repealed in February 2009 (discussion). Instead, "attack pages" (G10) may be applicable in some cases; otherwise, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for userboxes and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion for all other templates.
- T2. Misrepresentation of policy
- Was repealed in July 2020 following rare, often incorrect, use (discussion). Instead, "pure vandalism" (G3) may be applicable in some cases; otherwise, use Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
- T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances
- Was repealed in December 2020 due to misuse and the seven day hold (discussion). Instead, use an existing applicable criterion or submit the template to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
- T4. Subpages of non-existent pages
- Merged into "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8) in September 2008 (discussion).
- U3. Non-free galleries
- Was repealed in July 2021 since a bot automatically removes non-free images from user pages (discussion).
- U4. Old IP address talk pages that meet specific criteria
- Never enacted as policy anywhere, but deletions occurred nonetheless. Was repealed in March 2009 (discussion).
- P1. Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article
- Repealed in February 2023 following rare usage (discussion).
- P2. Underpopulated portal
- Repealed in February 2023 following rare usage (discussion).
- X1. Redirects created by Neelix
- Created as a G6 extension in December 2015 shortly after the discovery and arbitration case regarding 50,000+ questionable redirects created by the user Neelix, and later split into its own criterion. Was repealed in April 2018 after cleanup was completed (discussion). Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
- X2. Pages created by the content translation tool
- Created to delete pages created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016. Was deprecated in July 2017 when consensus agreed to move most of the remaining pages to the draft namespace (discussion).
See also
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
- Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
- Category:CSD warning templates
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
- Wikipedia:Deletion review
- Wikipedia:No blank pages
- Wikipedia:Proposed deletion
- Wikipedia:Undeletion policy
- Wikipedia:What to do if your article gets CSD tagged
- Wikipedia:Over-hasty Speedy Deleters
- Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion
Footnotes
- ^ In this context, speedy refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.
- ^ The current wording of this paragraph dates to an April 2020 discussion. G14 was added in October 2020. C1 was added in August 2022.
- ^ The result of the most recent deletion discussion controls. This means that if the most recent discussion was "keep" or a default to keep through no consensus, G4 does not apply. Likewise, an article that was deleted through its most recent discussion, but was kept in earlier discussions, is subject to the criterion and may be deleted (discussion).
- ^ For the avoidance of doubt, if a page is deleted at AfD and subsequently recreated as a redirect, G4 does not apply, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD (discussion).
- ^ A conversion to draft is when a page from a different namespace is moved, or its content copied, as a draft.
- ^ a b Page moves are excluded because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them. Such redirects must be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion before deletion. However, redirects that were obviously made in error can be deleted as G6, technical deletions.
- ^ Note that new editors sometimes mistakenly start article drafts on talk pages that have no article. If you see this, move the draft to the draft space or to the user's userspace, making sure the new user is listed as author and not you.
- ^ It was determined that the community consensus in this RfC regarding draft namespace redirects amounted to "there is a clear consensus against deletion of draft namespace redirects. There is a rough consensus against the alternative proposal to delete draft namespace redirects after six months."
- ^ Per this RFC.
- ^ An Rfc containing relevant discussions on the A1 criterion
- ^ a b Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled before that delay passes, to ensure the article is reviewed at a later time.
- ^ Routine coverage of unorganised events – for example, shooting incidents – may not necessarily qualify under A7; deletion discussions should be preferred in such cases.
- ^ Past discussions leading to schools being exempt from A7.
- ^ a b The definition of recent is intentionally flexible since some pages may receive more notice than others. Pages older than about 3–6 weeks are unlikely to be considered recently recreated; pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are. Higher-profile pages are considered recently created for shorter periods than those with a lower profile.
- ^ Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.
- ^ See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for an explanation as to why redirects created by merges cannot be deleted in most cases.
- ^ This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of license issues; instead see "Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons".
- ^ Before deleting this latter type of file/page, check whether the MediaWiki engine can read it by previewing a resized thumbnail of it. Even if it renders, if it contains significant superfluous information that cannot be accounted for as metadata directly relating to the media data, it may be deleted. It is always preferred to correct the problem by uploading a file that contains only the good data plus acceptable metadata.
- ^ Content from file description pages that is relevant to the Commons should be copied over before deleting the local page. If necessary, copy the attribution history as well.
- ^ Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 85 § U2 and global accounts
- ^ Diff of change
- 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 above, 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
If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria in C2 listed above, 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:
- * [[:Category:OLD name]] to [[:Category:NEW name]] – Reason for rename ~~~~
Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|newname}}
Please add new entries at the top of the list and sign and date stamp your entries with ~~~~.
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the time stamp shown is 23:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) (
) or earlier.Current nominations
- Category:Moorestown Township, New Jersey to Category:Moorestown, New Jersey – C2D per Moorestown, New Jersey. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:IFA Premiership players to Category:NIFL Premiership players – C2B: per NIFL Premiership. New division name. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Articles suffering from anachronisms to Category:Articles with anachronisms – All maintenance categories use "with", not "suffering from"! Debresser (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note to processing admin The category is populated through the {{Anachronism}} template. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose heartless lack of empathy with trauma endured by categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note to processing admin The category is populated through the {{Anachronism}} template. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Cantemireşti family to Category:Cantemirești family – C2B: per Cantemirești. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Ceauşescu family to Category:Ceaușescu family – C2D: per Ceaușescu family. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Soviet rehabilitations to Category:Rehabilitations (Soviet) – C2D: per Rehabilitation (Soviet). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Polish intelligence officers (1943–1990) to Category:Polish intelligence officers (1943–90) – C2A: WP:DATERANGE. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Recipients of the Virtuti Militari (1943-1989) to Category:Recipients of the Virtuti Militari (1943–89) – C2A: WP:NDASH & WP:DATERANGE. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Communist Poland rehabilitations to Category:People's Republic of Poland rehabilitations – C2B: per People's Republic of Poland/Category:People's Republic of Poland. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Communist Czechoslovakia to Category:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic – C2D: per Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Communist Romania to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania – C2D per Socialist Republic of Romania. Androoox (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:People in Communist Romania to Category:People in the Socialist Republic of Romania
- Category:People executed by Communist Romania to Category:People executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania
- Category:Communist Romania rehabilitations to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania rehabilitations
- Category:Former subdivisions of Communist Romania to Category:Former subdivisions of the Socialist Republic of Romania
- Category:Communist Romanian regions to Category:Regions of the Socialist Republic of Romania (also C2C per Category:Subdivisions of former countries)
- Oppose all except perhaps "Communist Romania rehabilitations", which did indeed happen in the Socialist Republic of Romania. The "Communist Romanian regions", for instance, existed from 1950 to 1968, and for all but the last three years of that period, the state was the Romanian People's Republic. Heck, even the main article is Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of Romania. "People in Communist Romania"? Look in the subcategories, and find Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu (d. 1954), Gala Galaction (d. 1961), Mihail Roller (d. 1958), Mihail Sadoveanu (d. 1961) - i.e., people who never even heard of the Socialist Republic of Romania because they were, you know, dead by the time it was founded. "People executed by Communist Romania"? Again, Eugen Țurcanu, executed in 1954, was not executed by an entity set up eleven years later. As for the main category, yet again, things like SovRom, 1952 Constitution of Romania, Danube–Black Sea Canal, Soviet occupation of Romania, Collectivization in Romania, Pitești prison and so forth were almost entirely features of the Romanian People's Republic. This is an ill-thought out proposal that should at best be considered on a case by case basis. - Biruitorul Talk 15:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Ipswich Council elections to Category:Ipswich Borough Council elections – WP:C2D - main article is at Ipswich Borough Council with subarticles named Ipswich Borough Council election, 1998 etc. Number 57 21:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The main article of the category is Ipswich local elections, and therefore it should be renamed to Category:Ipswich local elections. If the article is renamed after an RM discussion, than this speedy renaming can go ahead. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council elections to Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council elections – WP:C2D sort of applies - there isn't a main article for the council, but it's clear from their website that they are a borough council, not a district council (the article on the jurisdiction is Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme), and I think a full CfR discussion would be a waste of time for something so obvious. Number 57 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The main article of the category is Newcastle-under-Lyme local elections, and therefore it should be renamed to Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme local elections. If the article is renamed after an RM discussion, than this speedy renaming can go ahead. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Missouri State Bears to Category:Missouri State Bears and Lady Bears – C2B/C2D since the school's men's and women's sports have different nicknames, no gender is necessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Missouri State Bears athletes to Category:Missouri State Bears and Lady Bears athletes
- Category:Missouri State Bears athletic directors to Category:Missouri State Bears and Lady Bears athletic directors
- Category:Missouri State Bears women's soccer to Category:Missouri State Lady Bears soccer
- Category:Missouri State Bears women's soccer players to Category:Missouri State Lady Bears soccer players
- Category:Missouri State Bears swimmers to Category:Missouri State Bears and Lady Bears swimmers
- Category:St. Albert city councillors to Category:St. Albert, Alberta city councillors – C2B per Category:St. Albert, Alberta/St. Albert, Alberta. Steam5 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Accountancy journals and ledgers to Category:Accounting journals and ledgers – C2B: per Accounting/Category:Accounting. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Accountancy qualifications to Category:Accounting qualifications
- Category:Accountancy firms to Category:Accounting firms
- Category:Accountancy firms by country to Category:Accounting firms by country
- Category:Accountancy firms of Canada to Category:Accounting firms of Canada
- Category:Accountancy firms of India to Category:Accounting firms of India
- Category:Accountancy firms of Pakistan to Category:Accounting firms of Pakistan
- Category:Accountancy firms of Singapore to Category:Accounting firms of Singapore
- Category:Accountancy firms of the United Kingdom to Category:Accounting firms of the United Kingdom
- Category:Accountancy firms of the United States to Category:Accounting firms of the United States
- Category:Defunct accountancy firms to Category:Defunct accounting firms
- Category:Defunct accountancy firms of the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct accounting firms of the United Kingdom
- Category:Defunct accountancy firms of the United States to Category:Defunct accounting firms of the United States
- Category:Professional accountancy bodies to Category:Professional accounting bodies
- Category:Model agencies to Category:Modeling agencies – C2D: Per the main article Modeling agency. Mbinebri talk ← 15:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Nigerian soccer players by state to Category:Nigerian footballers by state – C2C, to match parent category Category:Nigerian footballers. GiantSnowman 12:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Pagan Folk musicians to Category:Pagan-folk musicians – C2A: fix capitalisation, and hyphenate as a compound modifier. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I presume that these are players of "pagan folk" music, rather than folk musicians by religion. So shouldn't this be hyphenated as Pagan-folk? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, Fixed. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I presume that these are players of "pagan folk" music, rather than folk musicians by religion. So shouldn't this be hyphenated as Pagan-folk? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:NES game covers to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System game covers – C2B: per Nintendo Entertainment System/Category:Nintendo Entertainment System. (To processing admin: This speedy renamed can't be handled by the bot, therefore please leave me a note on my talk page after processing this.) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Opposed nominations
- Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia to Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia – C2D. Androoox (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. @Androoox: Fails C2D; head article is neither stable at current title nor moved by a WP:RM discussion.
Article was moved on 4 January 2014 from Provinces of Saudi Arabia on Regions of Saudi Arabia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)- Comment @BrownHairedGirl: Androoox began to empty the category outside of process. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. @Androoox: Fails C2D; head article is neither stable at current title nor moved by a WP:RM discussion.
- Category:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles to Category:WikiProject Beyoncé – C2D per WP:WikiProject Beyoncé and consensus at Talk:Beyoncé. Mayast (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:WikiProject Beyoncé articles
- Category:Beyoncé Knowles articles by importance to Category:Beyoncé articles by importance
- Category:High-importance Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:High-importance Beyoncé articles
- Category:Low-importance Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Low-importance Beyoncé articles
- Category:Mid-importance Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Mid-importance Beyoncé articles
- Category:NA-importance Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:NA-importance Beyoncé articles
- Category:Top-importance Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Top-importance Beyoncé articles
- Category:Unknown-importance Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Unknown-importance Beyoncé articles
- Category:Beyoncé Knowles articles by quality to Category:Beyoncé articles by quality
- Category:A-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:A-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:B-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:B-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Book-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Book-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:C-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:C-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Category-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Category-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Disambig-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Disambig-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:FA-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:FA-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:File-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:File-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:FL-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:FL-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Future-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Future-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:GA-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:GA-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:List-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:List-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:NA-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:NA-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Needed-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Needed-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Portal-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Portal-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Project-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Project-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Redirect-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Redirect-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Start-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Start-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Stub-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Stub-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Template-Class Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Template-Class Beyoncé articles
- Category:Unassessed Beyoncé Knowles articles to Category:Unassessed Beyoncé articles
- Oppose This is a rename that was contested and defeated 8 times on the article. This attempt to ramrod, which was done with too few days even though there was opposition is totally unacceptable. There needs to be a consideration of the whole history of how a person is referred to, not just knee-jerk attempts to impose a rename from temporary shifts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Object the project was moved without discussion. The project needs to have been informed and assent to renaming itself. There is no provision requiring that the WikiProject be named exactly the same as the main article. There is no discussion at the wikiproject indicating it wished to rename itself. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, that's an argument I accept. I didn't know that there was no discussion at the project page before it was moved, I just noticed that it was, so per CD2 these categories should be moved too. As for John Pack Lambert's arguments, there was a consensus to move the main article (Beyoncé). It wasn't a temporary shift, but a well-argumented proposal that was finally supported by the majority, so I don't know why does he have a problem with that. Mayast (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support There is no policy that says as a main article is renamed then categories must follow, but to keep the categories named in a way the consensus on the main article identified as not common usage would be redundant. John Pack Lambert—your argument isn't making sense, we should oppose the renaming of the categories because of past consensuses, despite this being overturned by a newer consensus? Can we stick to the pertinent policies WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MONONYM, etc. please? —JennKR | ☎ 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- @JennKR: this is not a place for debate. A speedy renaming may be rejected if admins do not believe that it meets the speedy criteria, or if any editor objects.
The only relevant policy here is the speedy renaming policy, and talk of other policies belongs at a full WP:CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: That makes sense, we'll take it there. Thank you for clarifying the difference between speedy/normal propositions. —JennKR | ☎ 01:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- @JennKR: this is not a place for debate. A speedy renaming may be rejected if admins do not believe that it meets the speedy criteria, or if any editor objects.
- Oppose. This isn't complicated. C2D 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.
That isn't the case, and now that this speedy renaming has been opposed by at least 1 editor, it will not proceed. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)- So Talk:Beyoncé#Requested move 9 doesn't constitute "explicit consensus to rename"? The closing administrator would probably beg to differ. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Scottish Travellers to Category:Scottish Gypsy and Traveller groups – C2D: Scottish Gypsy and Traveller groups —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. This a category of individuals, not of groups. Did the nominator even look at the list of the category's contents before nominating? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Yes, I did. How do you know that it's supposed to be a set category only containing biographical articles versus a topical category containing any content related to this topic? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Because there are 2 articles on the topic; the rest are about individuals, not groups. Your proposed rename would require the removal of all but 2 of the 12 pages currently in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Then what do you propose the name be? Should we omit the "Gypsy" part? Note that Category:Irish Travellers is composed of biographical and topical articles... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I don't propose any renaming. If there are gypsies to categorise, they should be in a separate category. If there is some reason to categorise them all together, then the title should at least omit the word "groups". But none of that is speediable, so it needs a full discussion --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Then what do you propose the name be? Should we omit the "Gypsy" part? Note that Category:Irish Travellers is composed of biographical and topical articles... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Because there are 2 articles on the topic; the rest are about individuals, not groups. Your proposed rename would require the removal of all but 2 of the 12 pages currently in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Yes, I did. How do you know that it's supposed to be a set category only containing biographical articles versus a topical category containing any content related to this topic? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I still don't see why this isn't speedy per the main article's name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Because, as I explained above, 10 of the 12 articles are about individuals rather than groups. As I explained above, your proposed rename would therefore require the removal of those 10 biographical articles.
I am sorry that I have not been able to find a clearer way of explaining to you that an individual is not a group. Maybe another editor can help clarify it to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: Statements like "I am sorry that I have not been able to find a clearer way of explaining to you that an individual is not a group" are simply rude and derogatory: what's the purpose of writing something like that? Again, and maybe I'm not being clear: how do you know the category is supposed to be about groups and not just topics related to said groups? Simply put, you can't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Stop being silly. The reason I wrote that it needs more explanation is that you seem unable to grasp the point, and still seem to find it difficult.
The category currently includes groups and individuals; you have offered no evidence that it was ever intended to be otherwise. The article was added as a main article in this edit, 5 years after the category was created. That was a helpful edit, linking to an article on part of the topic; but a moment's scrutiny of the category would have shown you that the scope of the category is broader than that that article.
If you want to propose splitting the category to separate those, then open a full discussion; but if it is not split, then your proposed renaming would exclude the individuals from any gypsy/traveller category.
But whatever you do, this speedy has been opposed and will therefore not proceed. Further discussion here is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: Well, you're at least partly right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Stop being silly. The reason I wrote that it needs more explanation is that you seem unable to grasp the point, and still seem to find it difficult.
- @BrownHairedGirl: Statements like "I am sorry that I have not been able to find a clearer way of explaining to you that an individual is not a group" are simply rude and derogatory: what's the purpose of writing something like that? Again, and maybe I'm not being clear: how do you know the category is supposed to be about groups and not just topics related to said groups? Simply put, you can't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Because, as I explained above, 10 of the 12 articles are about individuals rather than groups. As I explained above, your proposed rename would therefore require the removal of those 10 biographical articles.
- Oppose. This a category of individuals, not of groups. Did the nominator even look at the list of the category's contents before nominating? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:People from Ilocos Region to Category:People from the Ilocos Region – C2B. RioHondo (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:People from Bicol Region to Category:People from the Bicol Region
- Category:People from Davao Region to Category:People from the Davao Region
- Comment: I'm not sure about these three; where is the precedent for "the"? Only 2 of 17 in Category:People by region in the Philippines currently have "the". The page Bicol Region does use "the" in its text but Davao Region does not. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re Standard practice for regions named X Region to be preceded with "the"; as in Category:Populated places in the Bicol Region, Category:People from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and Category:People from the Cordillera Administrative Region where as regions that have plain names, e.g, Central Luzon and Caraga: Category:People from Central Luzon and Category:Populated places in Caraga. See Lists of Cultural Properties of the Philippines for a clear picture. --RioHondo (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I held off processing these because I wasn't sure that there really was a C2B grammatical issue. I think this needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I suggest that the one for languages can go ahead as C2D per Languages of the Bicol Region. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry FL, but I won't withdraw that oppose. I think that we should seek consistency across this type of category, rather than renaming one individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I suggest that the one for languages can go ahead as C2D per Languages of the Bicol Region. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure about these three; where is the precedent for "the"? Only 2 of 17 in Category:People by region in the Philippines currently have "the". The page Bicol Region does use "the" in its text but Davao Region does not. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine musical groups to Category:Filipino musical groups – C2B per nationality Filipino. RioHondo (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine choirs to Category:Filipino choirs
- Category:Philippine electronic music groups to Category:Filipino electronic music groups
- Category:Philippine girl groups to Category:Filipino girl groups
- Category:Philippine jazz ensembles to Category:Filipino jazz ensembles
- Category:Philippine orchestras to Category:Filipino orchestras
- Category:Philippine ska music groups to Category:Filipino ska music groups
- Category:Philippine rhythm and blues musical groups to Category:Filipino rhythm and blues musical groups
- Oppose speedy. @RioHondo: WP:MOSPHIL#Adjective_form_of_the_Philippines is unclear which form should be used for groups of Flipinos. I think that Filipino is correct, but the ambiguity makes this an inappropriate speedy. There should be a full discussion so that editors have the opportunity to discuss whether to change the current convention. Note that Category:Philippine musical groups has 3 sub-categories using "Filipino", and 11 using "Philippine". Any change should bring consistency, which this nomination of 6 subcats won't do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine hip hop to Category:Filipino hip hop – C2B per nationality Filipino. RioHondo (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine hip hop groups to Category:Filipino hip hop groups
- Oppose as proposed These should be renamed to Category:Pinoy hip hop and Category:Pinoy hip hop groups as C2D. The main article of the categories is Pinoy hip hop. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re Some say Brit, others say British. Pinoy is just like that to Filipino. I understand the main articles need renaming first though. :) RioHondo (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Of course if the main articles are renamed through an WP:RM, than these can also be speedy renamed. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re Some say Brit, others say British. Pinoy is just like that to Filipino. I understand the main articles need renaming first though. :) RioHondo (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed These should be renamed to Category:Pinoy hip hop and Category:Pinoy hip hop groups as C2D. The main article of the categories is Pinoy hip hop. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine hip hop groups to Category:Filipino hip hop groups
- Category:Philippine folk music to Category:Filipino folk music – C2B per nationality Filipino. RioHondo (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose at least speedy. The main article of the category is Philippine folk music. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine pop music groups to Category:Filipino pop music groups
- Oppose as proposed This should be renamed to Category:Pinoy pop music groups as C2B per Pinoy pop. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine reggae musical groups to Category:Filipino reggae musical groups
- Oppose as proposed This should be renamed to Category:Pinoy reggae musical groups as C2B per Pinoy reggae. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine rock music groups to Category:Filipino rock music groups
- Oppose as proposed This should be renamed to Category:Pinoy rock music groups as C2B per Pinoy rock. This would also conform it to Category:Pinoy rock albums and Category:Pinoy rock compilation albums. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Philippine heavy metal musical groups to Category:Filipino heavy metal musical groups
- Oppose per my commment above about the rock music groups category. This probably should be renamed to Category:Pinoy heavy metal music groups. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Softball championships to Category:Softball competitions – C2C: per Category:Sports competitions by sport NickSt (talk) 11:29 pm, 8 December 2013, Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC+2)
- Category:Squash tournaments to Category:Squash competitions
- Category:Soft tennis tournaments to Category:Soft tennis competitions
- Category:Roller skating championships to Category:Roller skating competitions
- Category:Roller derby tournaments to Category:Roller derby competitions
- Category:Inline hockey tournaments to Category:Inline hockey competitions
- Category:Golf tournaments to Category:Golf competitions
- Category:Flying disc tournaments to Category:Flying disc competitions
- Category:Dog sledding races to Category:Dog sledding competitions
- Category:Darts tournaments to Category:Darts competitions
- Category:Cross-country skiing races to Category:Cross-country skiing competitions
- Category:Badminton tournaments to Category:Badminton competitions
- Oppose this and all following Sports "something" to Sports competitions. The current category names seem to use the common term in the sport, as also used in articles and subcats. For example, most subcats of Category:Golf tournaments have "tournaments" in the name, and none have "competitions". There is no reason to say "competitions" about all sports when they use different terms. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose no rationale for changing some categories to a non-standard and leaving a huge number with the standard name. Golf tournaments is also more accurate and descriptive. 2005 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Záhonyi VSC players to Category:Záhonyi VSC footballers – C2C: per the convention of Category:Footballers in Hungary by club. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Zalaegerszegi TE players to Category:Zalaegerszegi TE footballers
- Category:Vác FC players to Category:Dunakanyar-Vác FC footballers (also C2D per Dunakanyar-Vác FC)
- Category:Videoton FC players to Category:Videoton FC footballers
- Category:Várda SE players to Category:Várda SE footballers
- Category:Újpest FC players to Category:Újpest FC footballers
- Category:FC Tatabánya players to Category:FC Tatabánya footballers
- Category:Soproni VSE players to Category:Soproni VSE footballers
- Category:FC Sopron players to Category:FC Sopron footballers
- Category:Répcelak SE players to Category:Répcelak SE footballers
- Category:Pécsi Mecsek FC players to Category:Pécsi MFC footballers (also C2D per Pécsi MFC)
- Category:Pálhalma SE players to Category:Pálhalma SE footballers
- Category:Puskás FC players to Category:Puskás Akadémia FC footballers (also C2D per Puskás Akadémia FC)
- Category:Orosháza FC players to Category:Orosháza FC footballers
- Category:Nyíregyháza Spartacus FC players to Category:Nyíregyháza Spartacus FC footballers
- Category:Nyírbátori FC players to Category:Nyírbátori FC footballers
- Category:Mátészalka FC players to Category:Mátészalka FC footballers
- Category:MTK Budapest FC players to Category:MTK Budapest FC footballers
- Category:Monori SE players to Category:Monori SE footballers
- Category:Mezőkovácsháza TE players to Category:Mezőkovácsháza TE footballers
- Category:Létavértes SC players to Category:Létavértes SC footballers
- Category:Kaposvári Rákóczi FC players to Category:Kaposvári Rákóczi FC footballers
- Category:Hajdúszoboszlói SE players to Category:Hajdúszoboszlói SE footballers
- Category:Győri ETO FC players to Category:Győri ETO FC footballers
- Category:Gyulai Termál FC players to Category:Gyulai Termál FC footballers
- Category:Dunaújváros FC players to Category:Dunaújváros FC footballers
- Category:Dunaújváros PASE players to Category:Dunaújváros PASE footballers
- Category:Debreceni VSC players to Category:Debreceni VSC footballers
- Category:Csákvári TK players to Category:Csákvári TK footballers
- Category:Budapest Honvéd FC II players to Category:Budapest Honvéd FC II footballers
- Category:BFC Siófok players to Category:BFC Siófok footballers
- Category:Balmazújvárosi FC players to Category:Balmazújvárosi FC footballers
- Category:Algyő SK players to Category:Algyő SK footballers
- Oppose - With some exceptions (e.g., "players" instead of "footballers" for American clubs), I think that the choice to use "player" or "footballer" may have more to do with the type of club (i.e., football club versus multi-sport club) than the country in which it is located. For example, "Foo FC players" may be preferable to "Foo FC footballers", which would be read as "Foo Football Club footballers". On the other hand, "Foo SC players", read as "Foo Sports Club players", may be ambiguous when the club is a multi-sport club. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. All other subcategories from Category:Association football players by club have format Club X players. Maybe rename all subcats to this format. No clear convention in Hungary cattree: 84 footballers, 33 players NickSt (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that either format is used consistently—see, for example, Category:Footballers in Mexico by club—although it would be desirable to put some kind of clear standard in place. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities and towns in Italy to Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Italy – C2C: Remove "and towns" to match with other subcategories of Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities and towns in Germany to Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Germany
- Oppose for both:IMO it would be much better to rename them to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Germany resp. Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Italy. Please check at Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places. The after cities in Germany / Italy categories (if wanted/needed) would be subcategories of those. As of now at least the Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities and towns in Germany contains some places which are neither cities nor towns, but villages (populated places), so that category would eventually be needed anyway. And most of the towns mentioned there shouldn't be classified as cities either. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities and towns in Germany to Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Germany
- Category:The Muppets songs to Category:Songs from The Muppets – C2C per the convention of Category:Songs from films. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Muppets is a franchise that included both films and television series. The convention for television series is not as clear-cut as it is for films; see, for example, Category:Glee (TV series) songs, Category:Sesame Street songs, and Category:South Park songs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion
- None currently
Moved to full discussion
- Category:Caio Duilio-class battleships to Category:Caio Duilio-class ironclads – C2D: per Caio Duilio-class ironclad. The Bushranger One ping only 10:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fails C2D. The head article was renamed in Nov 2013 without an WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Moved to full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fails C2D. The head article was renamed in Nov 2013 without an WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Los Angeles Blues to Category:Orange County Blues FC – C2D per Orange County Blues FC. – Michael (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Los Angeles Blues players to Category:Orange County Blues FC players
- Category:Los Angeles Blues seasons to Category:Orange County Blues FC seasons
- Oppose. The head article was moved to the current title on 6 February 2014 without a prior requested moves discussion. This does not meet C2D criteria, so a full CFD discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Moved these to full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The head article was moved to the current title on 6 February 2014 without a prior requested moves discussion. This does not meet C2D criteria, so a full CFD discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Fictional cancer survivors to Category:Fictional characters with cancer –The length of time needed to be a survivor is not clear. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment That would be a C2C per Category:Fictional characters by physical feature and Category:People with cancer, but expand as the category is at full discussion, therefore it's not eligible for speedy renaming. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Moved to full discussion at CFD 2014 February 5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment That would be a C2C per Category:Fictional characters by physical feature and Category:People with cancer, but expand as the category is at full discussion, therefore it's not eligible for speedy renaming. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Kamchatka to Category:Kamchatka Peninsula – C2D: per Kamchatka Peninsula Tim! (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Volcanoes of Kamchatka to Category:Volcanoes of Kamchatka Peninsula
- Category:Mountains of Kamchatka to Category:Mountains of Kamchatka Peninsula
- Category:History of Kamchatka to Category:History of Kamchatka Peninsula
- Oppose pending clarification. Tim!, if Kamchatka Peninsula is the head article, shouldn't the category names use the definite article: Category:Volcanoes of the Kamchatka Peninsula etc?
And are you sure that category should refer to the peninsula, rather than to the political Kamchatka Krai, or its predecessor Kamchatka Oblast? See Category:Geography of Kamchatka Krai.
Most geographical categorisation is based on political/administrative boundaries, and I don't yet see a reason why this should be an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)- Thanks for your observations BrownHairedGirl. Category:Kamchatka Krai has its own category and the cat main is currently pointing at Kamchatka Peninsula. I shouldn't think Kamchatka Oblast is a likely head as it covers a smaller area than the current Krai. Peninsula and Krai are not exactly the same region, as the Krai also contains the Commander Islands and Karaginsky Island. If a rename does go ahead the parent/child should be reversed with peninsula being a subcategory of Krai. I agree with adding the into the subcategories. This might be better suited for a full nomination, not the straightforward speedy I thought it looked like!. Tim! (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Tim!: Thanks for that reply. I am not sure that categorising by the Peninsula is a good idea, and I think that upmerger might be preferable, so I think a full discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_4#Category:Kamchatka. Tim! (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Tim!: Thanks for that reply. I am not sure that categorising by the Peninsula is a good idea, and I think that upmerger might be preferable, so I think a full discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your observations BrownHairedGirl. Category:Kamchatka Krai has its own category and the cat main is currently pointing at Kamchatka Peninsula. I shouldn't think Kamchatka Oblast is a likely head as it covers a smaller area than the current Krai. Peninsula and Krai are not exactly the same region, as the Krai also contains the Commander Islands and Karaginsky Island. If a rename does go ahead the parent/child should be reversed with peninsula being a subcategory of Krai. I agree with adding the into the subcategories. This might be better suited for a full nomination, not the straightforward speedy I thought it looked like!. Tim! (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Category:1905 Russian Revolution to Category:Revolution of 1905 – C2D per Revolution of 1905 Charles Essie (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:People of the 1905 Russian Revolution to Category:People of the Revolution of 1905
- Oppose. I propose to rename Revolution of 1905 to 1905 Russian Revolution, and Russian Revolution to 1917 Russian Revolution (due to disambig problems) and leave categories as is. 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Proposing the renaming of articles should be made on the talk page (this isn't the right place for that). Also both titles were chosen in RM discussions (1905 & 1917). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And what. First discussion was with only one support vote. Category tree in not clear here. Why is Category:1905 Russian Revolution included in Category:Russian Revolution, why does Category:1917 Russian Revolution exist? Oppose to renaming until clear cattree will be built. NickSt (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have completed some of the needed cleanup of the category tree. However, it is necessary to allow the rename to proceed so that further cleanup can take place. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose any “interim” speedy renaming of the two 1905 categories; refer any proposal to full discussion. Oppose leaving out “Russian” from either 1905 category name. Note that in the Category:People by revolution the titles for Egypt, 2011 and Hungary, 1956 include both the country and the year. Re the article Revolution of 1905, it could be argued that 1905 was not a revolution but (significant) constitutional change, like the 1832 Reform Act in the United Kingdom. Hugo999 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- And what. First discussion was with only one support vote. Category tree in not clear here. Why is Category:1905 Russian Revolution included in Category:Russian Revolution, why does Category:1917 Russian Revolution exist? Oppose to renaming until clear cattree will be built. NickSt (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Proposing the renaming of articles should be made on the talk page (this isn't the right place for that). Also both titles were chosen in RM discussions (1905 & 1917). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I propose to rename Revolution of 1905 to 1905 Russian Revolution, and Russian Revolution to 1917 Russian Revolution (due to disambig problems) and leave categories as is. 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Proposal, Category:1917 Russian Revolution should be deleted, it's redundent and serves no purpose. Charles Essie (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have initiated a full discussion for that category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The two 1905 categories are now at full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have initiated a full discussion for that category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:People of the 1905 Russian Revolution to Category:People of the Revolution of 1905
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.