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") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required to process these. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.

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

Admin instructions for handling listed entries[edit]

When handling the listings:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. Make sure that there are no oppositions to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing the opposition(s).

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed - follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying 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 14:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC). Currently, there are 64 open requests (refresh).


Current nominations[edit]

  • @Hugo999: Thanks for the note. I am declining speedy as "people" can mean coaches or other sportspeople and athletes are the performers in sports. This is consistent with several schemes. I'll be happy to make my case at a full CfD. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes but which way - I am happy to put up for full discussion for going to "athletes" for the 17 states if that is favoured, in line with the parent category Hugo999 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hugo999: Sorry if I was unclear. The parent category is Sport people with child categories as appropriate (Sport players/coaches/etc.) For most sports, it's not necessary to have more than coaches and players and for many, only players. Does that clarify? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Opposed nominations[edit]

Oppose We don't need tacky over-disambiguation. It's clear that Category:Drake concert tours isn't referring to a male duck on tour. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: And you should read C2D above and be cognizant of guidelines before making moves. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Richhoncho – I'm with Jon Kolbert here: if the base article name has a parenthetic disambiguator, but there's no possible ambiguity in the category name, we don't have to move the category per C2D. Please open a regular CFD request. I think C2D could use some tweaking to that effect, subject to consensus. No such user (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
more fossils-by-state categories
      • These seem OK to go ahead as WP:C2E.
      • @Abyssal: Having said that, I'm not sure they should exist. Paleozoic sub-categories such as Category:Ordovician animals of North America seem a lot more useful. It's anachronistic to describe Paleozoic life of a US state or Canadian province/territory. Moreover, these categories are causing "category clutter" on many of the member pages. IMHO the best outcome would instead be to make lists of fossils found in each state, and delete these categories. – Fayenatic London 22:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Fayenatic london: The articles on genera that seem "cluttered" tend to be those with the greatest number of species that the categories will eventually be dispersed across. For instance, Pecopteris has ~16 state categories, which seems like a lot, but imagine those 16 categories divided across the redirects for the 250-300 species have been named in that genus and things don't sound so cluttered. Also, most instances of these categories being used are likely to be replaced in the future with subcategories for individual stratigraphic units, which often span several states. In other words, the "clutter" caused by these categories is temporary. Abyssal (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I think these can be processed, and subsequently be nominated for deletion. Note that even the New York category, I tagged for speedy renaming as part of the New York renaming, and which Cydebot renamed, detagged, and modified some of the parent categories' names, can also be processed here despite not technicly being C2E, since the modificaton was small enough to be IARed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Agree with Fayenatic london that these should be nominated for deletion, I clicked randomly a number of articles and not a single one of these articles mentioned any specific US states. Often multiple countries were mentioned, which makes it likely they could occur anywhere in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
              • @Od Mishehu: @Marcocapelle: So does anyone mind if I replace these categories with article lists like @Fayenatic london: said before the deletion proceedings begin? Abyssal (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
                • Don't mind at all. While work is in progress the categories may be listed in WP:CFDWM and the category pages may get an appropriate "CFD manual" template. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
                • @Abyssal: By all means, go ahead with making lists. Do you want to cancel the renaming, as it looks as if there won't be much point doing that now? – Fayenatic London 18:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
                  • Sure, cancel the renaming, but can we wait until next week to delete these? I have to work long shifts on the weekend and won't have time to make the articles. Abyssal (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
                    • Yes, they can stay on hold in this section of the page. Let us know when you're done, and we can then delete them under WP:CSD#G7. It would help us if you'd make a simple bulleted list of any others, e.g. for Canadian provinces. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion[edit]
  • None currently

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.