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 immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.
  • This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages 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 05:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC). Currently, there are 1,851 open requests (refresh).


Current nominations[edit]

I agreeMjs32193 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Opposed nominations[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]
  • Comment The category and article were moved unilaterally without any discussion to "Nature Research". I challenge that move and request that the original situation be restored. A move like this should not be done without discussion (which has now started at Talk:Nature Publishing Group. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment That discussion seems to have died down, but it is clear that there was no consensus for the previous move to "Nature Research", so the original situation should be restored. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment In short, this contests a previous speedy move that was done without any discussion and requests restoration of the original situation. --Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
So... Can I remove the speedy rename tag? I agree with RandyKitty that it should be reverted back to "Nature Publishing Group academic journals" in order to match the parent article, which is appropriately named. That being said the tag has been up for quite a while now, so can we please move it or get rid of the tag. ThanksDig Deeper (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this still lingering here? There was unilateral move which needs to be reverted given the significant opposition to it. The only person objecting to the reverting is the person who carried out the undiscussed previous move. The parent article, Nature Publishing Group, has been moved back to that title weeks ago and with the sole exception of Le Deluge everybody who has commented upon that move either on the article's talk page or here is in agreement that the current title should be kept and the category returned to its original name. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Category:Chakri Dynasty to Category:Chakri dynasty – C2B and C2C, virtually all other dynasty categories use a lower case d. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Not speedy candidate, conflicts with C2D. Move discussion pending on main article. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Discussion is at Talk:Chakri_Dynasty#Requested_move_2_November_2016. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    A new discussion was initiated at the talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion[edit]
  • Category:Lists of Nickelodeon shows episodes to Category:Lists of Nickelodeon shows' episodes – C2A. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose; this would not match the contents as they do not use possessives, e.g. List of The Amanda Show episodes not "List of The Amanda Show's episodes". – Fayenatic London 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic london: I think you misunderstood something here. The title of the individual episode list articles is irrelevant, that's different. But this needs a possessive to be grammatically correct. See also Category:Lists of Disney Channel shows' episodes. Something like "Lists of Nickelodeon show/series episodes" or "Lists of episodes of Nickelodeon shows/series" would make sense, but there's precedent for this with Disney and I think that one sounds better. Compare with Category:Lists of American television series episodes, which is fine because "series" is both the singular and the plural. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
        • @Nyuszika7H: But that one which is fine does not use a possessive either, i.e. it is not "Lists of American television series' episodes". The Disney one is the odd one out and should be changed instead. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
          • @Fayenatic london: Please read my comment again. You did not read it properly, because I already addressed that point. "Series" is both singular and plural, therefore it's correct, but "shows episodes" is definitely not grammatically correct. The other alternative from the ones mentioned above I'd suggest if you don't like this one is "Lists of Nickelodeon series episodes". Might be a better idea as WP:TV seems to prefer "series" over "show" anyway. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
            • But @Nyuszika7H: the apostrophe is nothing to do with plurals. Your nomination is not about changing between singular & plural; rather, it's about using a possessive noun. You do not seem to be consistent in accepting "American series episodes" without using a possessive form. FYI, I have now nominated the Disney categories at CFD 2016 Nov 28. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
              • @Fayenatic london: It is inconsistent, I accept that, but it's not the only outlier. Either way, the current title is grammatically incorrect, but "Lists of Nickelodeon series episodes" would work without a possessive, I'd be OK with that. If you want, I'll move this to a full CfD as well. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
              • Moved to full discussion.nyuszika7h (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This article isn't even in the category.... Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2016 (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.