Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:CFDS" redirects here. For the criteria for speedy deletion, see WP:CFSD.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcut

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 page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
  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 may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) 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 untagged and delisted 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 criteria

[edit]
Shortcut

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

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

[edit]
Shortcut
  • 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 includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

[edit]
Shortcut

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

[edit]
Shortcut

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 name

[edit]
Shortcut
  • 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 the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or 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.
  • Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.

C2E: Author request

[edit]
Shortcut
  • 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 page

[edit]
Shortcut
  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template 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 instructions

[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 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 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 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 ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

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

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page 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 16:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 2,091 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

[edit]

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

I guess you responded after I stopped checking regularly for a response, so thank you for the note on my talk page. DGG is deceased, so it's obviously not an option to seek his input. I'm opposed to using obscure corners of project space to bypass discussion on items which should be discussed. Some editors in those project spaces appear only interested in pursuing (a purely superficial notion of) consistency, often without regard for whether there was any consistency involved WRT consensus enroute to that point. Hence, my earlier mention of venue-shopping. I have no strong opinion on capitalization variants other than they're often time wasters that stand in the way of moving the project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question @RadioKAOS, we need to know whether you're opposing just the national monuments nominations, or also the national forest nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left them a message after the above reply on their talk page and I've left them another one now. We still need clarity on whether the objection is just to the national monuments renamings, or the other renamings as well, including the national forests. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous failure of communication... They've been pinged for clarity four times and had three messages left on their talk page about this. Personally I think it's reasonable to proceed with all but the national monuments nominations since there's been a lot of effort made to seek out clarity on this and they're not providing it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're talking about the monuments categories solely, but I'm obviously a bit biased as the nominator. Any thoughts @Ymblanter? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I full support this move but I'd say move this to full Cfd, just to be safe. At this point, it is safe to say this person is deliberatly ignoring you. If they have an objection, they can raise it there. If not, then they had numerous oppertunities to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

[edit]
@HouseBlaster: Yes. Instead of doing a speedy move, can you do a move discussion, and post the rationale there? Perhaps WP:CONSUB. @Dekimasu:, would you like to interpret your original close? Did that cover this too? User_talk:Dekimasu#LGBT_->_LGBTQ_move Bluerasberry (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people have already supported the move of sub articles (whether it be in Talk:LGBTQ community#Requested move 27 August 2024 RM and (myself including) have started moving various articles that are uncontroversial as many have for a long term already explained the Q in addition to the LGBT. The relevant policy that covers the category now following suit is WP:C2D.
Do you want a collective category move discussion for all categories as a sort of “sampling”? In any case I don’t think there will be any good policy based reason to oppose, other than the personal WP:JDL at this point and we should stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. As for you pinging the closer of the original RM, asking for interpretation, he already did that in his close he noted: This move may require changes to the article text to conform to the new title, and may imply that templates, categories, etc. should also be moved; please consider contributing to this sort of cleanup. - so yes, it implied that categories will likely (using the word may) follow suit in line with our existing consistency policies (CONSUB for artices, C2D for categories) for main and sub-topic relationships. Raladic (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raladic (cc: Ymblanter), a common position I see in the move review discussion was that the RM result should strictly only apply to the article, while further renaming of the very numerous associated pages should be subject to further discussion I'd throw in another oppose for all these LGBT/LGBTQ speedies. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012 - This blanket opposition to "all LGBT moves" is not in line with policy.
The 2 latest requests I made above:
LGBTQ writers, LGBTQ events
were carefully submitted in line with their respective eponymous List of LGBTQ writers and List of LGBTQ events articles titles.
A blanket statement of saying we need to now run all of these category moves, whether they were bulk, or whether they actually were very deliberate and definitely uncontroversial through the bureaucracy of full category move reviews with an WP:SNOW outcome, then that just grinds us to a halt for no reason. Raladic (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two list articles were only recently moved by you, and not as a result of the RM discussion, which they were not named as part of. C2D does not apply here. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C2D is not preempted just because I was the one that moved them, if those BOLD moves were still uncontroversial (which is the case there, as those pages I moved have LGBTQ events and LGBTQ writers explicitly).
C2D does allow a cat move even if the article it is based on was or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations
While my rename was bold, it still is well in line with our article policies, both on CONSUB, but also more specifically for those articles as I just outlined as I checked the content.
Arguably, I didn't provide a citation for the catmove itself as the unilateral part requests (as I missed that part), so on procedural grounds I can see someone could request one and place it on hold, which I'll be happy to provide.
But I dispute that C2D doesn't apply outright on this careful and deliberately selected move. Raladic (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to move quickly with a mass rename of tens of thousands of articles. I am asking for days, not unreasonable delays. I am not re-arguing this as I never got to participate in the move discussion anyway. This started as a move discussion attended by 20 people for one article, and now it is 100,000 moves of links and prose. I do not object to the moves if consensus is there but I want someone, perhaps the closing admin, to take responsibility for the decision that the one-article move discussion was sufficient for these massive changes. At Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September the closing admin said, I did not write here or elsewhere that the result should be used to "radiate everything outwards" without discussion.. The original move discussion was sufficiently attended for what it was - the move of a single article - but I am arguing that it was not sufficiently attended for mass changes of Wikipedia and what could very well be a change big enough to make the news and be the subject of anthropology studies. I am ready to stand down but I am trying hard to find a venue to have a voice in this. At the move discussion I feel like the subject was whether that one article's move was legitimate, and I agree it was, but I still want to be heard about the next cohort of several thousand moves when they are considered collectively. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why, just as I also expressed in the MR and some other editors as well, I posted after the initial RM, the notification on The WikiProject to ensure that the community agreed that in line with our long standing understanding of active members of the project and various sub articles (which I have participated in), that after we found consensus for the main article, likely this would also allow the movement of sub articles. Also as I already noted, this wasn't just the understanding of this single RM that ultimately triggered the move, but the follow up to last years RM, which already pointed everything in that direction and many active editors in the Wikiproject and the space were aware of it and anticipated it, so it didn't come as a surprise to any of us. Prior to the final move to LGBTQ, many sub-articles were repeatedly changed back to "LGBT", even though those pages were always explicitly about LGBTQ, but that was always shot down with the inverse argument of "we want consistency, so we'll keep it LGBT under CONSUB. So those inverse arguments can't have it both ways, now that we do have the main article moved to LGBTQ.
Now I have not moved tens of thousands of pages, nor am I advocating for it in a rush. I first posted the notice to the Wikiproject after the RM and waited, to ensure my feeling on this wasn't wrong, and you expressed opposition, which was discussed there, as well as in the MR, but beyond that, most active editors of the project appear to have had the same thoughts as me as they've followed it closely over the years. Following the SNOW outcome of the MR and not seeing any clear good policy based reasoning for further opposition of moving some sub-articles, I have now started with some individual, very deliberate uncontroversial moves of articles that have already discussed LGBTQ in the article bodies for a long time, including the sourcing to support it (basically using the litmus test of "if someone did decide that they disagreed with my BOLD move, would it be very likely that policy based my move would be supported by a subsequent formal RM for that sub-article (basically following our policies of WP:BEFOREMOVING).
Also independent of my own feeling and the notice, some other editors also appear to feel that it has become appropriate and have started moving a handful of articles. Separate to the few articles I have moved myself over the past few days, none of which have had any opposition from people, in fact, quite the opposite as I've gotten a few "thanks" for them, showing explicit support. So now I'm simply following up and nominating those categories to follow those articles that I believe are uncontroversial, based on the topics they cover. I think the move of many articles (and categories and the likes) will take many months, might even be a year or longer, since we want to be deliberate about it and even just the few articles I have moved, have required a lot of post cleanup, such as link corrections in templates, default sorts and updating article leads and prose as appropriate. But I don't think that it is unreasonable to get started with it in line with those topics that arguably are covering LGBTQ topics and doing so slowly as I have started. An article at a time. Raladic (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raladic: Okay, everything seems cool then. Some articles are moved, and that's fine, and more people know, and that is good too. There was a move discussion last year - that's nice, let's build from that. Now that we have the attention of 100+ people and we know that the discussion is about moving all of this per CONSUB, can we move this to full category discussion? I support pinging everyone who has ever shown interest, to confirm we have consensus for this. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we so need a collective discussion that says "should every single article be moved" as that question does not have a simple "yes/no" answer, the answer inevitably is "it depends on the context".
Instead, I think the right path forward, and that which I have taken so far is to raise awareness where we can, and go one by one on specific articles, whether it be with WP:BOLD moves with my own abilities as an editor to interpret that article X can likely uncontroversially be moved and stands a reasonable chance based on the data. Or for cases where there may be more contention, that someone will open an RM for that particular article and then it will be moved.
Even from a technical standpoint, we can't bulk move articles because of all the post-cleanup that has to be done manually, so I think doing these moves and trusting editors judgement of whether to be bold (and be subject to a retroactive RM if someone does find contention in a move) or do an RM is the right move, individually, per article. Raladic (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the now full Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 11#LGBT nominations which were opposed at CFDS category discussion for those categories that @HouseBlaster nominated is underway and it also looks like a SNOW case and a very experienced editors has questioned why the speedy move requests were opposed procedurally to begin with.
So I think I'd take that one full CfD as the litmus test for these category moves and hope that after it, we can proceed with the others as CfDS, such as my above ones that were very deliberate. Raladic (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, I will not be willing to move everything anything via CFDS. We always have extremely vocal people coming a week after everything has been moved demanding that the categories get moved back because they oppose the move but were not around during the 48h nomination period. And processing these categories is a lot of my time. I believe my (limited) time is best spent on something else than on moving thousands of categories back and forth.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear, @Ymblanter. It's about time to move on, I think. We're currently having the same discussion in multiple places and it's becoming a huge time sink.

You state yourself, @Bluerasberry, that at least part of your objection is based on being heard rather than policy. In a single post yesterday, you said:

  • "I never got to participate in the move discussion"
  • "I want someone, perhaps the closing admin, to take responsibility for the decision"
  • "I am trying hard to find a venue to have a voice in this"
  • "I still want to be heard"

Your words strongly suggest, at least to me, that this is actually about feeling unheard and your sense of unfairness that this discussion was resolved without you. And I get that—it sucks when you get left out, or you miss out on something, or it seems no one agrees with you. But I do think you have been listened to—multiple times—and your viewpoint has been taken onboard.

I don't intend my comments as a personal attack, so I apologise if I seem blunt, but your remaining objections no longer seem to be based on valid WP policy. Your policy-based arguments, on the other hand, have all been addressed and discussed in turn, and you've slowly retreated from those arguments. Most people didn't agree with your interpretation of those policies or believe other policies are more relevant, and it seems unlikely anyone is going to change their minds here.

So, in the end, your remaining argument largely seems to boil down to WP:DONTLIKEIT, and holding the process hostage based on this (again, IMO) risks becoming disruptive. I suspect others are getting tired of the same debate, too.

@Raladic's suggestion of addressing each page on a case-by-case basis (following WP:CONSUB where there isn't a specific reason to use another initialism) seems to me to be a very pragmatic one. In fact, it gives people the option to discuss such changes on each individual page, which allows even more people to potentially engage in the discussion—which is exactly what you want, anyway. It doesn't rely on people having to engage with a process within a limited timeframe, either.

It would be great if we could draw a line under this now. I hope we can. Lewisguile (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&oldid=1245704640"