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.

Applying C2 in full CfD discussions[edit]

  • 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 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC). Currently, there are 216 open requests (refresh).

Current nominations[edit]

There is one image (the title card) and no character articles for Dynasty (2017 TV series) as yet, and even when there are, I'm not sure that they can't be combined with those of Dynasty (1981 TV series) in the existing categories, which contain only 16 and 35 items, respectively.— TAnthonyTalk 00:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The category currently matches the article, Crişana. AusLondonder (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you please explain the difference between cites in A and counties of A? Sawol (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"Cities in" means their geographical location. In case of counties, "of" is better, because they are administrative divisions, not cities. Brandmeistertalk 19:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: Thanks. Cities in South Korea are also administrative divisions. Both cities and counties in South Korea are in the same level administrative subdivisions. South Korea is made up of 8 special cities and 9 provinces. A province consists of cities and counties. So, is Category:Cities in South Korea moved to Category:Cities of South Korea? Sawol (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: You are only one opponent. You are responsible for providing replies. Please show that a) counties in South Korea are administrative divisions, b) cities in South Korea are not administrative divisions, c) administrative divisions use "of," and d) geographical locations use "in." Sawol (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not relevant. Category:Counties uses "of", so this category should retain "of" for consistency, as this is C2C criterion ("Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree"). Brandmeistertalk 00:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Opposed nominations[edit]

  • @Editor-1: It seems like you missed the point, you should nominate the category for a regular discussion, rather than trying to have it speedied down here. If you scroll up to the explanation of the process you'll hopefully understand. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Long list of MLA categories
  • Questions @Armbrust:
    1. There are probably a few thousand subcats of Category:Legislators by term. Does the nom intend to propose changing all of them, or just India?
    2. The RFC which changed the MOS permits that d exceptions can apply with a strong local consensus. Is there is any pressing reason not to leave these as an exception? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    India for now, but the others will follow too (down the road). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: That's Q1, but you missed Q2: what exactly is the point of this change? As @Le Deluge notes, space is at a premium here, so why change thousands of a categs to a more verbose format, when an exception is permitted and most of the articles they contain appear in more than one of these categs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose as below - MOS:DATERANGE makes no reference to categories, whilst the RfD that changed it says that yy dates can be used "when space is at a premium, such as in tables or infoboxes" - as per recent CfDs on British MP categories I'd argue that the category section of an article qualifies. And then there's the inconsitency for bots and templates thing - either do them all or none at all.Le Deluge (talk) 23:29, 17 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)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
  • None currently
Moved to full discussion[edit]
Oppose speedy: 1. Ambiguity, per Brexit (disambiguation), particularly with the referendum. 2. There is a current discussion on the future of the Brexit article at Talk:Brexit#Need_to_split_this_article. Might be better to wait for the outcome of that discussion.--Mhockey (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mhockey: there was consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit (disambiguation) that the term is not ambiguous. Also, that discussion at Talk:Brexit seems to have run out of steam. Do you withdraw your opposition? – Fayenatic London 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Now listed at May 10. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 10 May 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.