Open main menu

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy 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}} with no required delay. 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, it may be requested regularly at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

Speedy criteriaEdit

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

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixesEdit

  • 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: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practicesEdit

C2C: Consistency with established category tree namesEdit

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

  • 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: Consistency with main article's nameEdit

  • 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 (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply, even if an article is the primary topic of its name.
  • 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.
  • This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.

C2E: Author requestEdit

  • 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.

C2F: One eponymous articleEdit

  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).

Admin instructionsEdit

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 opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.

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

Applying speedy criteria in full discussionsEdit

  • 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 hereEdit

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 ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the 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 03:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC). Currently, there are 85 open requests (refresh).


Current requestsEdit

Opposed requestsEdit

  • Category:Albums produced by Cole M. Greif-Neill to Category:Albums produced by Cole M.G.N. – C2D: I found that a category already existed for this topic only after I created one based on the main article's title, which I just moved based on the artist's long-established common name. Another user only recently created the other category and only populated it with one page, so I didn't catch it; my bad. Can we move the page? Also should overwrite the new page to preserve the old page history. I grieve in stereo (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose - this isn't a speedy as you moved the page boldly today. Oculi (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    A more accurate description of the category (which contains only Hyperspace (album)) would be Category:Albums on which one non-notable track is co-produced by Cole M. Greif-Neill. Oculi (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    since when have categories for albums by producer been based on the notability of the track(s) on the album that they produced or that it was co-produced with someone else? As far as I am aware, never. I grieve in stereo (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    I would say that someone who has produced about 5% of an album cannot be described as having 'produced the album'. The article itself says "The album was co-produced by Beck with Pharrell Williams" and yet it bears no less than 5 producer categories. Oculi (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    "I would say"—then discuss that with WikiProject Albums or something. I don't know the rule, but as far as I have seen producer categories aren't reserved for the album pages where said producer produced all or most of it. And I frankly don't have any opinions on which pages the category should be included in nor if the category should exist either. I'm only here talking about renaming the original category (which I did not create, User Koavf did). I grieve in stereo (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Black British is an official term. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I've had many arguments with Americans about subjects like this on Quora. Americans insist on using Americanisms for everything, even when the rest of the English speaking world are in the majority. They label every topic/category/article about Black people to African Americans, so when you request to change them to things like Black people, Black culture, Black music etc you're fighting an uphill battle, as they seem to think the word Black is racist. I've even heard Americans refer to Black British people as British African Americans countless times, and they've even referred to people from countries in Africa as African Americans a few times too. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose see above. Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:University of Hanover to Category:Leibniz University Hannover – C2D: per Leibniz University Hannover. --Fippe (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Category:University of Hanover alumni to Category:Leibniz University Hannover alumni
    • Category:University of Hanover faculty to Category:Leibniz University Hannover faculty
      Oppose speedy Main article was unilaterally moved recently and then debated on User talk:Fippe. TSventon (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      Said discussion resulted in unanimous support for the new name. --Fippe (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      Two editors opposed the move and you supported it, so support was not unanimous. TSventon (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      That was indeed the case initially, but the opposition dropped, which can be gathered from the discussion you linked. --Fippe (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      The discussion shows that the move was not uncontroversial so C2D does not apply and a full discussion is needed. TSventon (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      I am sure you are aware that C2D still applies for a page which was moved "unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations". (The citation in question is "Informationen für die Leibniz Universität Hannover, Ausgabe Juni 2018" (PDF). uni-hannover.de. Leibniz University Hannover. Retrieved 2019-11-05. Gleichzeitig gibt es mit „Leibniz University Hannover“ nun auch eine offizielle Übersetzung für die Kurzform des Universitätsnamens. Weitere Einzelheiten regelt das Rundschreiben 22/2018.) C2D also states "If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply" - note the present tense. The page name may have been controversial in the past, but that is not the case currently. --Fippe (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      @Fippe: I agree with @Bermicourt: and @Gerda Arendt: that the article should not have been moved without discussion so I have submitted a technical request to reverse the move. TSventon (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
      I doubt you agree with them, otherwise you wouldn't be opposed to the current name. --Fippe (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose renaming the categories. The name is new, and very few would actually fit in the overly precise cats. Perhaps we should look very generally at the article names of universities, some changing often, while "university of a city" is more stable. - Our article is Max Reger, not his formal long official birth name, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Comment Leibniz University Hannover has been moved back to University of Hanover per the filed technical request. -- /Alex/21 15:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Comment @Fippe: if you submit a move request for the article then these speedy requests can be held until the discussion is concluded. TSventon (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The naming convention for splitting male and female deity categories is "god" and "goddess" respectively. So by Wikipedia standards "male deity" is synonymous with "god" and using the latter would make the space much cleaner and easier for users to maneuver. -- Invokingvajras(talk) 21:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:Inuyama, Aichi to Category:Inuyama – Make category name in sync with article name. Gryffindor (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    I only tagged it for move now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose speedy Please consider that all the other categories included in Category:Cities in Aichi Prefecture are as well named Category:City, Aichi if we change this category should me not as well change all te others as well? For this reason I Oppose to speedy renaming and suggest to follow the normal procedure. --Robby (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose per Armbrust but its already been moved and maybe should be reverted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't notice the comments here, I just checked the talk pages before making the move (there were no comments there). No objections to it being moved back, the main thing for me is that we should only have one category for this rather than two! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    I reverted the move, so it's now back at Category:Inuyama, Aichi. After that I realised that there was some deleted page history at Category:Inuyama, Aichi, which I undeleted. For the record:
    1. Gryffindor created Category:Inuyama in 2017.
    2. MChew created Category:Inuyama, Aichi on 19 Oct 2019.
    3. Robby merged the contents [1] and redirected the old category later that day.
    4. Gryffindor nominated the new category for merger back to the old name.
    5. Mike Peel deleted the old category page and moved the new one over it on 9 Nov.
    6. I reverted Mike's actions today.
    @Mike Peel: thanks for acknowledging that you should have checked incoming links for current discussions. Even if the move had been correct, it would have been better to merge the page histories (by undeleting it after your move, see WP:CUTPASTE), or simply to redirect the new category page rather than move it over the old one; either way, the original history would then have been visible. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    Also note User_talk:MChew#Duplicate? that never got a reply. I thought I had restored the original history, sorry also for that! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot about these. Thanks, can I do it over the weekend? HandsomeFella (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussionEdit
Moved to full discussionEdit

Ready for deletionEdit

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.