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.

To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:

  • Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~

You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion but, unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.

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 revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.

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).
  • Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This does not include changing the plurality of a noun when such the distinction between topic and set categories is uncertain.

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 (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); 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). C2D does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
  • 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.
  • This criterion is also used to add a disambiguator to a category name, even when the main article is not the primary topic of its name, but no other topics are likely to have an eponymous category

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, list 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 {{subst: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 is 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.) If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:

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

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 10:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC). Currently, there are 160 open requests (refresh).


Current requestsEdit

  • @Fayenatic london: that counts as formally unopposed, doesn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was flagging a potential concern in case anyone else thinks it is significant, but IMHO the concern is not significant in this case, so this is unopposed. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Armbrust: you might want to add a bolded "support" or "oppose" here, for clarity. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • As I read it, Armbrust's comment is in support of the nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Opposed requestsEdit

  • Category:Alien vs. Predator (franchise) to Category:Alien vs. Predator – C2D: Matching page move from unnecessary disambiguation. 2pou (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose speedy Main article was only recently moved and without discussion, so C2D doesn’t apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose speedy - Alien vs. Predator is ambiguous per Alien vs. Predator (disambiguation). Oculi (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. Does this somehow become a discussion automatically, or should it simply be removed from the list when withdrawn? -2pou (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    @2pou: by default, it will just be moved down into the Opposed section for a while, in case someone wants to take it further. If you want to withdraw it, please remove the template from the category page, and this discussion. If you want to make a full nomination, you can leave both of those, and use {{cfr}} above the speedy template on the category page. – Fayenatic London 11:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope. They are season articles. --Gonnym (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle, I hadn't planned to do so, because it's a monster nomination. So out of laziness, I was inclined to look the other way.
    But if there some indication of a convergence of support for a particular format, I would do it. @Oculi and @Fayenatic, @Marcocapelle: would you three agree that the format for set categories should be "Crime in CountryName in YYYY" etc? I think that a prelim discussion at WT:CATP would help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle, I see your point, at least in theory ... but the reality of Category:Crimes is that despite being named as a set category and having appropriate header text, in practice it has a large set of topic categories as subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    • IMHO that's a valid analysis, and I would therefore support the proposal. – Fayenatic London 08:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl and Fayenatic london: I won't oppose when it goes to CfD as renaming to "crime", but the required effort is huge and the gain is (imho) small at best. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I admit that I'm not prepared to make the effort myself. @BrownHairedGirl: if you don't anticipate doing so yourself in the near future, I'd be grateful if you would withdraw your Oppose on these intermediate categories. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussionEdit

  • REDIRECT Category:Years of the 18th century in Egypt to Category:Years of the 18th century in Ottoman Egypt – C2C per Category:18th century in Ottoman Egypt, which was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_31#Category:17th_century_in_Egypt. If this set is approved for speedy processing then a mass nomination will follow for 19th century. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • REDIRECT Category:1798 in Egypt to Category:1798 in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:1799 in Egypt to Category:1799 in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:1800 in Egypt to Category:1800 in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:1790s in Egypt to Category:1790s in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:18th-century Egyptian people to Category:18th-century people of Ottoman Egypt (like Category:16th-century people of Ottoman Egypt)
    • REDIRECT Category:17th-century Egyptian people to Category:17th-century people of Ottoman Egypt
      • Strong oppose. @Fayenatic: That was a bad CFD decision in substance. Rebranding the chronology categories for a region on the basis of which coloniser was in control at the time adds no value for navigation (which is the main point of categories), and actively impedes navigation by removing consistency. The adjective "Ottoman" adds precisely nothing of navigational benefit, and fails WP:CONCISE. If this approach was followed through, we would have a series of different titles for the Egyptian chronology categories, for each of the successive colonial regimes, and then probably a series of titles for the various indigenous regimes which have followed. That complexity helps neither readers nor editors. We have a head article "Egypt" covering all these eras, and that title is best for navigation.
        Procedurally, that CFD was fundamentally flawed. It should have tagged and listed all the categories involved, which would have drawn the attention of more editors to the the folly which was being proposed. I appreciate that Fayenatic is trying to clean up after that flawed close of a flawed nomination ... but the unintended effect of using speedy to followup a flawed nomination is a form of stealthy bypasss of the consensus-forming process of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @BrownHairedGirl: just for info, I had not joined in this Ottoman Egypt discussion after earlier in vain having tried to change Category:Ottoman Syria which is used for the entire Levant, while no such polity in the entire Levant existed for most of the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Just for info - "Egypt" is a colonial name for the Nile Delta province imposed by occupant Roman Empire; the original naming was probably MSR in Ancient Egyptian language, though by the time of Roman occupation it had in fact become a Hellinistic dynasty named Ptolemaïkḕ basileía. Most modern Egyptian population is made of Arab Muslim invaders coming during Arab conquests from nearby Arabia (this is preserved in the official name of Egypt - Arab Republic of Egypt), while minority Copts are descended from Byzantine Christians who themselves descend from colonizing population from earlier era.GreyShark (dibra) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • @Greyshark09: Most of that has no relevance that has to this discussion. Howver, the fact that you agree that the term "Egypt" has been in use from Roman times makes your rebranding nomination rather silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • It was Provincia Aegyptus, which has almost nothing to do with modern Arab Republic of Egypt, except partial territorial overlap (very partial). Roman Aegyprus categories were recently renamed to differentiate from Arab Republic of Egypt due to anachronism - see relevant discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
              • @Greyshark09: almost nothing to do with modern Arab Republic of Egypt ... except that per the lead of Provincia Aegyptus, it "encompassed most of modern-day Egypt except for the Sinai Peninsula". Your obssession with relabelling at regime change serves on purpose other than to disrupt category navigation, and I think it's time to revisit the damage which you have done by your sneaky CFDs which don't even list the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Actually, nothing. Different population, different culture and language, different ruling class, different ethnic groups, different everything. Even the name "Egypt" for Jamahuriyyat Mizr al-Arabiya is Western, not used by current country's population and government. It is only your imagination connects Ancient MSR, Roman Aegyptus, Ottoman province of Mizr and modern Jamahuriyyat Mizr al-Arabiya into some continuous fiction. Same way you can refer to Arab Republic of Iraq as continuation of Sumer and Akkad and Canada as continuation of the Iroquese Federation.GreyShark (dibra) 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with Oppose arguments. It is all so much simpler to use "Egypt" all along. Place Clichy (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Although BrownHairedGirl says category navigation will be impeded, it's not impeded much, since the category header templates use {{navseasoncats}} which can bridge changes in name where redirects are set up. As well as Ottoman, the history of Egypt has the periods of Roman and Byzantine Egypt, see Category:Centuries in Egypt. I have no axe to grind here, and was (as BHG acknowledges) trying to resolve inconsistencies; but Wikipedia currently has plenty of other examples of chronologies using the colonial name, e.g. the Portuguese period in Category:Decades in Mozambique (to cite another one that currently needs sorting out). – Fayenatic London 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to full discussionEdit

  • Category:Canadian Poets Laureate to Category:Canadian poets laureate – C2C: Consistency with parent category Category:Poets laureate RA0808 talkcontribs 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @RA0808: most country siblings use capital letters, because it's a proper noun for each country. Why should Canada use lowercase? Is it because there are multiple (provincial?) titles in Canada? – Fayenatic London 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic london: That is also true. Technically there is no position called "Canadian Poet Laureate" or "Poet Laureate of Canada" (the title of Canada's national poet laureate is the Parliamentary Poet Laureate), and with the introduction of additional provincial and municipal poet laureate posts this category encompasses more than just the national poets laureate. It already includes several poets who were municipal poets laureate (i.e. Candice James was a poet laureate of Halifax, NS; Douglas Lochhead for Sackville, NB; Anne Michaels for Toronto). RA0808 talkcontribs 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks, RA0808, that's good enough for me. @Johnbod: please would you reconsider your Oppose below? – Fayenatic London 08:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Most other country sub-cats use P and L. In the UK at least this is an official job title, and always PL. Likely to be controversial & should not be a speedy at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Kiev Oblast to Category:Kyiv Oblast – C2D: per requested move on Talk:Kyiv and it applies to every subcategory, specifically Starzoner(talk) 12:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose this one per Kiev Oblast. Place Clichy (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support  Also, Place Clichy has dropped their opposition over there and that article has now been moved to Kyiv Oblast. It would be nice if they’d confirm or deny their opposition here. —Michael Z. 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Anyway, this discussion is moot now that the categories have been nominated to CfD. The topic is controversial enough to benefit from a full discussion, even though the discussion should be quite straightforward for many (but not all) categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @Place Clichy: note that this particular category is not on CfD (yet). Are you withdrawing your oppose against speedy renaming this category per C2D? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
          • It would be a bit funny to speedily rename categories about the oblast while categories about the city were brought to CfD. My understanding is that we'll get comprehensive sets of category renamings. Place Clichy (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Now Category:Kyiv is renamed, except for the contents of Category:History of Kyiv. Would @Place Clichy: please drop opposition to moving this category with the same sub-exceptions? Any undiscussed controversy left? Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Now that Kiev Oblast was moved to Kyiv Oblast there certainly is a rationale for moving the categories, however I still think that this should be done in a full discussion (at WP:CfD) as the speedy criteria are not met, especially the uncontroversial provision at WP:C2D. Place Clichy (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
                • What controversy? The article was moved early due to full consensus on talk:Kyiv Oblast. There is no further discussion. The name reflects an official renaming: romanization system was adopted in 1996, a revision which didn’t change this name was enacted into law in 2010, and it has been entered into the UN and US BGN databases. C2D applies. You are the only objector to either the page or category move, although you don’t have an actual objection. —Michael Z. 15:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Related to Kyiv Oblast
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bullshit, in art these are proper names subjects, which need the caps. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


List of categories
  • Category:Pride parades in Poland to Category:Equality marches in Poland – C2D: See equality marches in Poland, in Poland these events are called "equality marches" in order to emphasize that the organizers want equal rights. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose - Alignment with the rest of the category tree (and common usage) should override consistency with the article name in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    The equality marches in Poland are not commonly called "pride parades", even in English language sources. That is simply incorrect. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Black Falcon, I agree with @buidhe: this category should use the actual name used in Poland. So it's a valid C2D nomination, with a valid valid C2C-based objection. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Peacebuilding would not work here because it's an "-ing" word - it's about more synthetic (WP:RS) overviews of processes, not about particular concrete elements of them. The present elements of Category:Peacebuilding are wider topics than individual mechanisms. Many of the specific elements (mechanisms) are components both to solve existing conflicts and to prevent conflicts from occurring or recurring: e.g. arms embargoes and confidence-building measures. "War ending" is also an -ing expression, with the same problem. I don't see an objection in principle of having two sub-categories of Category:peace mechanism or Category:peace mechanisms, but it seems a bit premature to me, and I think the focus on individual things/pieces - mechanisms - will reduce the number of fuzzy categorisations. Better wait until we have more contributions/contributors before sub-categorising. Boud (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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.