Gpedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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}}
  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 Gpedia: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 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

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

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

  • 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 Gpedia naming conventions and practices

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

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 Gpedia: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

  • 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

  • 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 article

  • 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 instructions

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 Gpedia: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

  • 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

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 ~~~~

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 20:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC). Currently, there are 118 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

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

Opposed requests

  • Category:Attention disorders to Category:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder – C2D: ADHD would also need to be given Category:Attention so it retains its connections to the parent categories. Xurizuri (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Oppose speedy Xurizuri, this implies that all attention disorders are ADHD, which is not obviously true. The main article could have been selected in error. TSventon (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • TSventon, you're right, I should have explained more clearly. The implication is correct and intended. They are all ADHD, obsolete terms for ADHD, or fringe theories about ADHD. The recognised attention disorders have been combined under ADHD for a decade. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Xurizuri, I think that needs a full discussion. The processing admin can overrule my objection if they think this is straightforward. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep. Sorry, but that is inaccurate. Scholars routinely use the word Iran(ian) when talking about the country and its people during those centuries. The name of Iran was in usage of at least as early as 224 when the Sasanian Empire was founded, and medieval native writers often use the name Iran as well. "Persian" is not a conventional way to refer to the culture and people at all, since a vast amount of its inhabitants were not of Persian stock, but part of other Iranian groups, such as the Daylamites, Parthians etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
These categories have been moved see here and here within the 48 hr period by User:JJMC89 bot III. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full discussion is in order, since nobody can point to any consensus or prior discussion about these changes. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on the subject, but my impression is that Persia has been the more common term used up to at least 1935, when Reza Shah issued a declaration to change it (which was apparently reversed to some extent in 1959). The article about Hafez calls him a Persian poet, not an Iranian one. The same is true for Ferdowsi and Omar Khayyam. There's a whole article about the Name of Iran, and it's also discussed in the lead section of the Iran article, and there's a whole section called "Replacement of Persia with Iran" in the Reza Shah article. It doesn't seem entirely uncontroversial. I don't really know whether scholars have typically been applying the name change retroactively. (It's true that the other name did also exist before 1935.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Your impression about the 1935 bit completely correct, that was the case back then. However, nowadays, English scholarship mostly use the term 'Iran(ian)' when referring to the country pre-1925 as its more accurate. As for Hafez etc, that's because it was certain that they were of actual Persian stock, something which can sometimes be hard to discern since primary sources often mixed Persians up with other Iranian groups. The thing is however, a lot of historical Iranian figures, be it writers, generals (Asfar ibn Shiruya, Surena), or rulers (Parthian Empire, Buyid dynasty), were of Iranian, but certainly not Persian stock. Referring all those figures as 'Persian' would be like, er, calling a Kurd or Pashtun for a Persian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full discussion is in order. We would be governed by usage in independent English language sources. If Iran is the predominant contemporary usage, not just for present day Iran but for the region in historical contexts (other than ancient Persia, then we would probably not be seeing the result we do in this n-gram. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not really the best comparison, considering "Persian" refers to the language as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Certainly needs a full discussion. Especially in the case of the literary figures, where "Persian" refers to the language not the nationality - the first one I look at is Bangladeshi - Muhammad Faizullah. Please someone kindly ping me when the discussion opens. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For writers, a rename to "Persian-language" might be an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

Comment Brandmeister a full discussion might be better to establish whether dark ages is a proper noun per WP:NCCAPS. The category had Dark Ages (historiography) linked with a cat main template, but I changed the link to cat more as the article focuses on one Dark Age. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the target to Dark Ages (historiography) per C2D, though the parenthetical disambiguation may be hypercorrect. Brandmeistertalk 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I still think a full discussion would be useful. "Dark Ages (historiography)" is about the use of Dark Ages to describe the Early Middle Ages, which is only one part of this category. TSventon (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind in that case. Brandmeistertalk 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion. TSventon (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ready for deletion

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 Gpedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>