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).

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 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 10:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC). Currently, there are 647 open requests (refresh).


Current requestsEdit

112 more year/decade "Yugoslavian sport"/"Yugoslavian women's sport" categories
83 "Yugolavian" subcats of Category:Seasons in Yugoslav football
@BrownHairedGirl: If Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1992, then why are there categories after that date? Armbrust The Homunculus 12:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Armbrust, presumably because Serbia and Montenegro continued to use that name after the breakup: see Yugoslavia#New_states. The rights and wrongs of that are complex, and en.wp faces complex choices between jure and de facto terminology. Maybe there is a case for a full discussion somewhere on what terminology to use on the en.wp categories for 1992–2003.Mybe such discussions have already happened?
However, while these categories do exist and do refer to Yugoslavia, they should use the correct adjective ... so please can these speedy renames proceed without prejudice to any renaming? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with it. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Opposed requestsEdit

Oppose for the moment, I have just put up the recent move of article up for discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
On further investigation the move was made by a blocked editor (for moving articles) and I have reverted the article move. The article is now back at Arnthor Birgisson. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Xbox (4th generation) games to Category:Xbox Series X games – We now know the name of the 4th generation XBOX game console, so need to use it. Dream Focus 17:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose There is strong industry rumors there will be another 4th Gen xbox console to be announced soon (August is the rumored date). The games that have been announced on the XSX will also work on this console. (That's why there's the whole "Optimzed for Series X" branding). What the naming will be of the whole line of the 4th gen is yet clear, and if we change it now , we'll likely have to change it again.--Masem (t) 17:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
      • So we have Xbox Series X and List of Xbox Series X games but the category for these is named something else. Consistency is important. Also the official website for it calls it this already. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x/ So does the news media covering it. This is the official name. As for these "rumors", since when does Wikipedia go on such things? Seems ridiculous they'd announce one thing and not the other if there was more than one thing. And why release two consoles at once? If its just two versions of the same console, which has happened before, then it will have the same name. Dream Focus 15:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Microsoft has stated there will be additional consoles alongside the Xbox Series X that are part of this same hardware set per [2], its why the "Xbox (4th generation)" name was picked because microsoft said the name for this generation of Xbox was just "Xbox". That's why renaming this category doesn't make sense. --Masem (t) 15:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Masem. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Per Masem, and discussion is on going at WT:VG. Seems clear that a speedy change here is inappropriate. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – Should follow the same naming as the existing category tree. RGloucester 14:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Live Streaming software to Category:Live streaming software – C2A. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose I don’t see why this category redirect needs to be moved. Just create another at the proposed target. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    The current title does have some history (as being a separate category briefly) so I'd agree with the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    The current title has incorrect capitalisation and so does not need to exist after the correct name is created. It is a "redirect with possibilities" and has history, so it's better to do it this way than make a new page and delete the old one. M.Clay1 (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose. I agree with Armbrust. I see no need to preserve the history of a page which has been a category redirect for 4 years, and was a full category for only 5 days. Memorialising every error in metadata pages is absurd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's kind of irrelevant though. The current title needs deleting and the new one needs creating. Either it's done as a move or done as a new page and a deletion request. May as well do it this way. There's no reason not to. M.Clay1 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    No need to bring this to a process. Just create the new one, and move on. The miscapitalised one is harmless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    As mentioned in Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept, we generally don't keep incorrect category redirects. They're not helpful and just allow the possibility of someone using them incorrectly. Regardless, it is at this process now, and discussing whether or not this is a waste of time is the thing that is wasting time. M.Clay1 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussionEdit
  • Category:North Macedonian politicians to Category:Macedonian politicians. - WP:C2B. There's a naming convention in place which clearly establishes 'Macedonian' as the term for nationality. The policy was based on a wide consensus established by a RfC. A recent local consensus - [3] was obviously not aware of this and changed the name of the category. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose speedy @FlavrSavr: firstly, the category was moved through full CfD discussion, which closed today, so you could contact the closer and ask them to reconsider their close. Secondly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) says "Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred", which suggests a move to Category:Politicians of North Macedonia. Category:North Macedonian politicians by party should be nominated as well. Also, the category has not been tagged for speedy renaming. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    @TSventon: Thanks. So I should contact bibliomaniac15? BTW, that particular sentence has been hotly contested even post formulation of the policy. The 'nationality' part wasn't. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    @FlavrSavr: yes, see the lead of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I would suggest that the discussions should have considered WP:NCMAC, but it seems that they didn't. TSventon (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    @TSventon: That's really helpful, thanks. For the sake of formality I did tag the category as CFDS after your comment, but this will probably warrant re-opening the discussion or a new full CfD. I do agree that WP:NCMAC should be the basis of the discussed move. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    @FlavrSavr: it is correct to tag the category: the tag will be removed when the speedy process is concluded. The nomination can be moved to the "Moved to full discussion" section if a full discussion is (re)started and the category will also need a full CfD tag. TSventon (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    The CFD decision seems perverse. The category tree is Category:Macedonian people, and this seems to be the only exception to the "Macdenian fooers" convention of its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. While WP:NCMAC tried very hard to address the somewhat mixed results of the RfC on the adjectival usage of the country, it is pretty specific about the people (namely: nationality) of that country. I'm surprised that somebody actually brought the issue up, let alone managed to successfully go through a full CFD decision. Let's see what the move review will bring about. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved to full discussionEdit
@Marcocapelle: "Vetus Latina" is definetly more precise than "Old Latin". Those articles relate to manuscripts of the Vetus Latina, not any Latin manuscripts of old times. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: "Vetus Latina" designates the translations made from the Septuagint and the New Testament into Latin, mainly before the 4th century; see its article. The Vulgate is the 4th-century translations in Latin of the Hebrew Old Testament, the New Testament, and of some books from the Septuagint; those translations were mainly done by Jerome. Therefore, it is needed to distinguish between the Vetus Latina (a specific set of translations), the Vulgate (another set of specific translations), and other Latin manuscripts, and this is one of the the purposes of my renaming proposal. Veverve (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The distinction with Vulgate will still exist with Vulgate as a subcat of Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I add that the category is currently called "Old Latin" because "Old Latin" translates "Vetus Latina". You can check for yourself: all the manuscripts within this category are Vetus Latina texts. Veverve (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: the confusion also stems from the fact "Vetus Latina" is the common name for those translations, whereas "Old Latin" is condusing. Moreover, there would be no point in putting all the Vetus Latin New Testament manuscript in a new, broader, less precise category. Veverve (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. purge this category of show that are not series
  2. rename all the other subcats of Category:Television series by country and genre to use "shows".
But I don't see the case for making British programming an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
There shouldn't be an exception for Britain. However, articles properly categorised as programmes/programs/shows (in any country) shouldn't be improperly re-categorised as series. Another (hypothetical) suggestion: remove Category:British television programmes by genre from Category:Television series by country and genre which is, I think, the source of the problem. I now see Category:Television shows is (temporarily?) chaotic. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Thincat, excluding Brits shows from Category:Television series by country and genre is no solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Your option (1) would involve a great deal of work. Some subcats contain mostly one-offs (Category:British television documentaries) other subcats contain mostly series (or entirely if the subcat naming is correct). (2) would seem to me preferable but not as a speedy because the situation has not been clear. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Razakar to Category:Razakar (Pakistan) – C2D: per head article Razakar (Pakistan). The bare title Razakar is about the concept (an Arabic word which means volunteer), but Razakar (Pakistan) is a specific force which operated in East Pakistan. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I believe this should be Category:Razakars (Pakistan). – Fayenatic London 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic, the category currently structured as a topic category, so no plural needed. Maybe it should become a combined set/topic category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Not sure I understand this re WP:TOPICCAT. In what way is it "structured as a topic category", other than its name being singular rather than plural? How would it "become" a combined one – simply by renaming as I have suggested? – Fayenatic London 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Fayenatic: It's set up as a WP:TOPICCAT for the organisation called Razakar (Pakistan). If it was a set category, it would have people categories as patents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see – thank you. But I disagree that the organisation was called Razakar (Pakistan), even though that is its main article; in the article, the organisation is referred to either as "Razakars" or as "Razakar force". Moreover, I think the category is already functioning also as a set category. (I would probably move the article as well.) – Fayenatic London 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
              • @Fayenatic, I have moved this to the opposed section, because I think it has moved beyond the type of straightforward issue which can be handled as a speedy, so we need a full discussion to consider it. I'll leave it you make that full nomination, so that you can make the nominator's case upfront. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination has been split in two parts: (dis)establishments categories by year are now on full CFD. The other categories as listed in this section may follow later, dependent on the outcome of the full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 2nd full discussion here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 5 July 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.