Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

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

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

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

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

Speedy criteria[edit]

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

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes[edit]

  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).

C2B: Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices[edit]

C2C: Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names[edit]

  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name[edit]

  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or because the page was just moved after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
  • This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result.

C2E: Author request[edit]

  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here,
    • And no objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here[edit]

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

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

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

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 22:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC). Currently, there are 222 open requests (refresh).


Current nominations[edit]

Opposed nominations[edit]

  • The same is true of all the other lawyer categories. Though most of the Canadian lawyers were clearly also from the areas. We could change all the categories to be "in", but there are a lot more of them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Jharkhand MLAs 2000-2005 to Category:Jharkhand MLAs 2000–‎05 – C2A: use endash. Also C2C use YYYY–‎YY per convention of Category:State legislators of Indian States by term. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose as proposed abbreviating the last year to two digits goes against MOS:DATERANGE. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust:. I am aware that MOS:DATERANGE has changed. However, all the other Indian MLA categories still use the old YYYY–YY format, and this move fixes one part of the problem and at least achieves consistency within the group. I don't have the energy to nominate all the hundreds of other Indian MLA categories, so unless you are willing to do that, then the only effect of you oppose is to block consistency. How does making the best the enemy of the good help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Comment: Sports years eg Category:2015–16 in British rugby union use the YYYY-YY format for northern hemisphere winter sports etc and should be regarded as the standard format for sports years. A recent nifty template using this format displays past and future seasons. I was not aware of MOS:DATERANGE and do not see the YYYY-YYYY format as an improvement. Hugo999 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Hugo999: If you read MOS:DATERANGE, than you can see that the YYYY-YY format still can be used for consecutive years if reliable sources use that. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: As usual my position is that consistency and predictability is paramount for categories - it makes life so much easier for bots and template coders. Which in turn makes life much easier for everybody, even if they don't realise it. As the author of the aforementioned {{navseasoncats}}, I'd say about 40% of the coding time and 70% of the testing time was spent on handling one exception - what happens around the millennium. Now that's an exception you can't really avoid and so it was worth the effort in dealing with it - but adding exceptions just to make things look pretty creates work for the sake of it, and the result will be fewer, less effective templates for working with categories. Having nnnn-nn for 1-year seasons and nnnn-nnnn for 5-year "seasons" is an exception for the sake of it. I'd also note that neither MOS:DATERANGE nor the original RfC make any reference to categories, but I'd argue that when the RfC summary says "when space is at a premium, such as in tables or infoboxes, two year date styles may be used" that also applies to the cat list at the bottom of articles - qv recent discussions about MPs of British Parliamentary terms. I'd also suggest that MOS:DATEVAR applied to categories is essentially an argument for C2C as per BHG's original proposal.
    Whilst I'm here - for those that hadn't noticed {{navseasoncats}} has had a major update, so it now works with single years and decades as well as 1-year seasons, and the year can be anywhere in the category's name. I'm also planning to add centuries, intervals etc - see |my userpage for the current roadmap.Le Deluge (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Arunachal Pradesh MLAs 2014-19 to Category:Arunachal Pradesh MLAs 2014–19 – C2A: use endash. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose as proposed The last year should be expanded to four digits per MOS:DATERANGE. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust:. I am aware that MOS:DATERANGE has changed. However, all the other Indian MLA categories still use the old YYYY–YY format, and this move fixes one part of the problem and at least achieves consistency within the group. I don't have the energy to nominate all the hundreds of other Indian MLA categories, so unless you are willing to do that, then the only effect of you oppose is to block consistency. How does making the best the enemy of the good help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: Please can you have another look at this one? I really cannot see how anything useful is achieved by leaving this with a hyphen rather than endash, and it in no way prejudices a wider change of all the Indian MLA categories to the YYYY-YYYY format if you or anyone else wants to propose that wider change. Please can you clarify why you oppose changing a hyphen to an endash? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: I have nominated the other categories that use the old YYYY–YY format for speedy renaming above. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: I really don't like this way of doing things. Whatever your intent, it seems to me that in effect you are blocking the implementation of the existing convention as a hostage for your desired wider change. I don't see any valid reason for you not to let the existing convention be upheld, without prejudice to a wider discussion on your preferred new convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Association football people by country to Category:Association football people by nationality – C2C: per the convention in Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose. @Armbrust this is a container for categories of footballers in a country, who may not be of that nationality. See the similar distinction between Category:Association football players by country and Category:Association football players by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: In that case, however, it shouldn't be in Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: you may be right about that, and if so, then some juggling of parent categories may be required.
    However, the underlying question is that since this all arises from a desire not to put expatriate footballers in Fooland under a "Fooish people" category, hoe far up the tree do we pursue the distinction? I am far from sure that it is a good idea to retain this distinction in the category system, because I don't think that our general intermixing of people-by-nationality with people-by-place supports it. For example, an American expatriate artist in Paris may be there for all their notable career, possibly many decades, so it would be folly not to categorise them under Category:People from Paris .... but that places them under Category:French people. I see no problem with that, but the sports categories are based on the assumption that such fuzziness doesn't exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: This is a can of worms that is way too complex for a speedy. @BrownHairedGirl: I think the sports categories don't assume that kind of fuzziness doesn't exist, it's more that it's very common for footballers in particular to move around the globe, often on an annual basis - but for a very short time, maybe 6-8 years at the peak of their careers. So they don't get entrenched in the way that your artist would, so they don't identify as "French" - but at the same time, their two most defining characteristics at any one time are the team they are playing for and their international team (which is defined more strictly than citizenship - you can have two passports but only one football nationality). And for many footballers from smaller countries like say Ryan Giggs, they are defined more by the club than their country as they win many more trophies with their club than country. So personally I'd let sleeping dogs lie.... Le Deluge (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
  • None currently
Moved to full discussion[edit]
  • Comment - Perth city link and its connotations in the media do not necessarily fit the 'Perth City Link' - they can be seen to be different JarrahTree 07:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - It may be helpful if the {{cat explanation}} on Category:Perth City Link precinct explicitly and unambiguously stated the intended scope of the category, in particular whether it is the same as or different to the scope of the Perth City Link article. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Project is that - a 'development project' , the 'precinct' is the land in/on which it is contained - I fail to see how the two are seen as synonymous to encourage this form of action. JarrahTree 09:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how the project and the land are distinguishable in terms of providing content for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment in that case maybe it needs to go somehwere else than speedy JarrahTree 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved to CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll move this to CfD one of these days. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ready for deletion[edit]

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

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