Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and Modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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.
- Determine which speedy criterion applies
- Tag category with
{{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
- 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.
Contents
Speedy criteria[edit]
The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes[edit]
- Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
- Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices[edit]
- Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
- Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).
C2C: Consistency with established category tree names[edit]
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]
- 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.
C2E: Author request[edit]
- This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
- The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
Admin instructions[edit]
When handling the listings:
- Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
- With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
- Make sure that there are no oppositions to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing the opposition(s).
If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed - follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.
Applying 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 as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.
Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here[edit]
If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.
Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 19:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Currently, there are 54 open requests (. )
Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here! Categories are processed following the 48-hour discussion period and are moved by a bot. |
Current requests[edit]
- Category:Almirante Brown to Category:Club Almirante Brown – C2D, match parent article name GiantSnowman 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Almirante Brown footballers to Category:Club Almirante Brown players
- Oppose replacing footballers with players, because Club Almirante Brown is a sports club. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Almirante Brown footballers to Category:Club Almirante Brown players
- Category:Medical and health organisations in Peru to Category:Medical and health organisations based in Peru – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Politics of Broxbourne (borough) to Category:Politics of the Borough of Broxbourne – C2D per Borough of Broxbourne and C2C per Category:Borough of Broxbourne (note that the latter is recently created but the article is at longstanding title per WP:UKDISTRICTS). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Medical and health organisations in Lebanon to Category:Medical and health organisations based in Lebanon – C2C: To match majority of Category:Medical and health organizations by country Rathfelder (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Anglican church buildings in Leicester to Category:Church of England church buildings in Leicester – C2C within Category:Church of England church buildings by city. – Fayenatic London 12:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Santos F.C. (Georgetown) players to Category:Santos FC (Guyana) players – C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 15:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:United Petrotrin players to Category:United Petrotrin F.C. players – C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 13:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Nature Conservancy to Category:The Nature Conservancy – C2D: Nature Conservancy ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Transport organisations by country to Category:Transport organizations by country – C2C: convention in Category:Organizations by subject and country; also Category:Transport organizations. Oculi (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Order of Faithful Service to Category:National Order of Faithful Service – C2D: National Order of Faithful Service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Recipients of the Order of Faithful Service to Category:Recipients of the National Order of Faithful Service
- Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Faithful Service to Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of Faithful Service
- (oppose truck)
Oppose speedy. @Oculi, the current title is the result of an undiscussed move, and I don't see any English-language reliable sources ti support it. I did a Gbooks search, and usage seems to be lean more to omitting the word "National". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)- Despite the fact that the Romanian name of the Romanian order clearly includes the word "National"? That is beyond illogical! It's clearly the name of the order. Just because some English-language sources have obviously been lazy does not mean that we should be or that we should alter the clear and obvious name of an order from a non-English-speaking country. And in any case, there are plenty of references to its full title in English in this search. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with me. Oculi (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, Oculi, I pinged the wrong editor.
- @Necrothesp, per WP:COMMONNAME "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". That is why I did a search of Google Books. Your general web search predominantly searches unreliable sources, so it is irrelevant. (As an aside, this is a very basic issue in article titling. I am very surprised that after so much involvement in article titles, Necrothesp has flouted the fundamental principle of WP:CRITERIA to follow reliable sources).
- I could be persuaded by an official source which clearly gives the Romanian title as starting with the word "National". But I didn't find one in the head article, and Necrothesp's comment here amounts to assertion rather than evidence (a practise which Necrothesp engages in far too often). If Necrothesp has actual evidence of the Romanian usage, please present it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- So, evidence from such apparently unreliable sources as Carnegie Mellon University, Associated Press, the EU, the US State Department and NATO, plus the common sense that that's what it's actually and obviously called in Romania, its country of origin (and there is absolutely no reason, given it's a Romanian order mostly only awarded to Romanians, that it would have an alternative name in English), is irrelevant because a few lazy English-language authors have missed off the initial word (and note that the first author even in BHG's search uses the full name)? And apparently because they're printed books they trump any other source (because, as we all know, authors who write actual books never, ever make mistakes and their words must be taken as Gospel truth)! And then BHG makes what appears to amount to a personal attack on a fellow highly-experienced editor, my integrity and my activities on Wikipedia. What precisely is going on here? This seems to be a very odd renaming request to challenge. Because to me it seems to be blatantly obvious that that's what the order is called. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh dear, @Necrothesp.I'm sorry that you are so offended by my pointing out that en.wp has a policy of using reliable sources, but it shouldn't be news to you. The secondary sources which you cite now do appear to be reliable sources, but the general google search you linked to earlier is not, for the policy reasons above.
- But where's the actual evidence for you assertion about the official name in Romania? "
It seems to be blatantly obvious
" is not evidence of either official or common usage, and nor is your assertion that it's "common sense that that's what it's actually and obviously called in Romania
". As ever, I'm open to actual evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- Sorry, I just naturally assume that editors don't need every i dotted and t crossed. Its Romanian name is Ordinul Național Serviciul Credincios. The second word is fairly obvious. We don't make up names for foreign terms that are rarely seen in English. Why would we drop the "National" when the Romanian government uses it? Where is the evidence that the Romanian government drops it when translating it into English? I see none. Therefore, without evidence otherwise, we should default to a direct translation of the term (or leave it in its own language, to which I would not be opposed as I'm not a fan of translating things that aren't commonly translated). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp, I assume that if an editor actually has evidence in support of a proposal, that they will have the courtesy to take a few seconds to actually present that evidence rather than suggesting others go hunt for it whilst harrumphing
obvious
about the conclusions they have drawn from the evidence which they chose not to share. It seems that my assumption is not universally applicable. - That evidence of the official title at https://canord.presidency.ro/ro/pagina/ordinul-national-serviciul-credincios seems clear enough, so I have struck my oppose. Pity it took several rounds of discussion to get one link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp, I assume that if an editor actually has evidence in support of a proposal, that they will have the courtesy to take a few seconds to actually present that evidence rather than suggesting others go hunt for it whilst harrumphing
- Sorry, I just naturally assume that editors don't need every i dotted and t crossed. Its Romanian name is Ordinul Național Serviciul Credincios. The second word is fairly obvious. We don't make up names for foreign terms that are rarely seen in English. Why would we drop the "National" when the Romanian government uses it? Where is the evidence that the Romanian government drops it when translating it into English? I see none. Therefore, without evidence otherwise, we should default to a direct translation of the term (or leave it in its own language, to which I would not be opposed as I'm not a fan of translating things that aren't commonly translated). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- So, evidence from such apparently unreliable sources as Carnegie Mellon University, Associated Press, the EU, the US State Department and NATO, plus the common sense that that's what it's actually and obviously called in Romania, its country of origin (and there is absolutely no reason, given it's a Romanian order mostly only awarded to Romanians, that it would have an alternative name in English), is irrelevant because a few lazy English-language authors have missed off the initial word (and note that the first author even in BHG's search uses the full name)? And apparently because they're printed books they trump any other source (because, as we all know, authors who write actual books never, ever make mistakes and their words must be taken as Gospel truth)! And then BHG makes what appears to amount to a personal attack on a fellow highly-experienced editor, my integrity and my activities on Wikipedia. What precisely is going on here? This seems to be a very odd renaming request to challenge. Because to me it seems to be blatantly obvious that that's what the order is called. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- (oppose truck)
Opposed requests[edit]
- None currently
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
- Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Australia to Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Australia – C2C per Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country Danski454 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand to Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in New Zealand
- Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Canada to Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Canada
- Oppose at least speedy. The main articles of the categories are Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Australia, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in New Zealand and Catholic sexual abuse cases in Canada. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest placing this one on hold until this related discussion closes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion[edit]
- Category:Wikipedia character-substitution templates to Category:Character-substitution templates – C2C, to agree with Category:Character templates, Category:Line-handling templates, Category:Example-formatting templates, Category:Typing-aid templates, Category:Unit indicator templates, and insert 100+ other examples here. We only need prefix "Wikipedia" in template category names when it is needed for clarity (e.g. Category:Wikipedia self-reference templates). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: (1) per Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates; (2) per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions: Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories. I am not sure about "table of contents templates" being a real-world thing (I think of the various TOC options in MS Word...), but templates definitely are. Category:Character templates, etc. should all be prefixed with "Wikipedia". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- This should go to full CfR, then. "Templates" are not something about which we are going to have articles/categories that are going to be ambiguous with the names of Wikipedia-specific templates' names and categories. "It exists in the world" and "it is an encyclopedic topic" are not synonymous. The few off-site templates which are notable don't have names like our templates' names. The phrase "formatting and function templates" arguably is over-broad enough as a classifier to require a "Wikipedia" prefix, but "character substitution templates", etc., are not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Full CfR opened (just about the first of these; we needn't have essentially duplicate CfRs open to settle the same question). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Full discussion located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Category:Wikipedia character-substitution templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: (1) per Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates; (2) per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions: Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories. I am not sure about "table of contents templates" being a real-world thing (I think of the various TOC options in MS Word...), but templates definitely are. Category:Character templates, etc. should all be prefixed with "Wikipedia". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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.