Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested if they meet one of the speedy criteria listed below. To nominate a category:

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies.
  2. Tag the category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}.
  3. List the request along with a speedy criteria reason at § New requests.

Speedy requests 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 Categories for discussion.

The nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience. Categories that qualify for speedy deletion can be tagged with the regular speedy tags with no required delay or listing. Renaming under C2E may be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.

Opposing

Requests generally take about 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 criteria and raise any objections.

To oppose a speedy request, insert this immediately under the nomination: 

* '''Oppose''': Explain your objection. ~~~~

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process speedy nominations. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a regular CfD discussion. Unless you withdraw your opposition, the nomination may be turned into a regular CfD discussion.

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 from|[[WP:CFDS]]|~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at CfD in accordance with its instructions.

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

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between American and British 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

Shortcut

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

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:Transport in the United Kingdom and Category:Transportation in the United States).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

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 C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.
  • Just disagreeing with the article title is not enough reason to oppose a C2D request. Instead, if someone disagrees with the article title, they can start a WP:RM procedure on the article talk page and they can request the CFDS discussion be put on hold while the RM discussion is running. However, arguing that it is desirable to have the article and the category at different titles may be an adequate reason to oppose C2D.

C2E: Author request

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

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). When listing the nomination at WP:CFDS, you must manually add all the appropriate parent categories as targets if the member page is not already in them.
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 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.

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.

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.

For out of process deletions, check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the CfD process. After renaming, copy and paste the listing to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

Current requests

If the category does not match one of the above criteria or you are not sure it qualifies, do not list it here. Instead, use the main CfD process. Requests may be completed if more than 48 hours old; i.e., if the nomination was created before 18:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC). Currently, there are 98 open requests (refresh).

To 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 ~~~~

If human action is required, e.g. updating templates that populate 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}}

New requests

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).

All of these knee-jerk move proposals (and the ones being carried out by JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs)) seem frivolous, disruptive, and not well-thought out. Is there a requirement that if one category uses "medical doctor" than ALL other similar or sub-categories must also be called "medical doctor" regardless of common usage or grammatical logic? Is it monkey see, monkey move? --Animalparty! (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@Animalparty: JJMC89 bot III is just the bot that processes category moves. Other users propose the moves. None of them are knee-jerk or frivolous, and the reasoning has been explained. Please be more specific about what it is you're objecting to. Mclay1 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Opposed requests

  • Category:Australian rules football podcasters to Category:Podcasters on Australian rules football – C2C: sibling is Category:Podcasters on American football SMasonGarrison 02:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose: Australian rules football is not ambiguous like American football can be, so it doesn't need to deviate from the established format per C2C. Mclay1 (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Mclay1 @Dresq23 Well what are we supposed to do for Australian nationals? User_talk:Dresq23#Category:Australian_rules_football_podcasters SMasonGarrison 22:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Rename: Per discussion, the category was meant to be for Australians (nationality) who podcast about the sport of Australian Rules Football and not the sport itself. I did not want to call it "Australian Australian Rules Football podcasters." Can be renamed to something like Category:Australian podcasters on Australian rules football. Dresq23 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Dresq23 @Smasongarrison There is no need to make the category specifically for Australian people. Diffusing by nationality for that sport is not necessary, and it wouldn't make sense without a broader category for the sport. Mclay1 (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    To be clear on this, it can still fall within the parent category of Australian sports podcasters, correct?Dresq23 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Mclay1's saying that same thing I am that as written it isn't specific to Australian sports podcasters. So adding the parent category of Australian sports podcasters isn't approipriate. SMasonGarrison 23:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Dresq23 Sorry forgot to tag youSMasonGarrison 23:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    In that case would have to then put all the Australian sports podcasters back into that parent category. Would sort of defeat the purpose of having the more specific category here, which was the initial purpose in making that category.Dresq23 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    yep. but that's how categorization diffusion works unfortunately. SMasonGarrison 23:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think it would be fine to add it as a subcategory of Australian sport podcasters, like how Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War is a subcategory of Category:American military personnel by war – it doesn't use a nationality unlike all its siblings because the nationality is a given. If there are ever any articles on non-Australian Aussie rules podcasters, then we can revisit. Mclay1 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose: A future expansion of the category tree may be needed, as the sport continues to reach new audiences overseas—e.g. this recent viral streamer (red link)—but as at this point in time it seems distinctly unnecessary to specify Category:Australian rules football podcasters by nationality when each of the podcasters listed are Australians (barring one American-Australian and one British-Australian—both of whom are Australians by citizenship anyway) and the sport only exists in a professional capacity in one country. To me it would be the equivalent of having the hypothetical category "Turkish oil wrestling podcasters by country" when there might well only be one notable podcast on the topic and, as such, no current articles that would need to be diffused further (nor does such the category Turkish oil wrestling podcasters exist, so that might be a bad example). But following this logic, should we then be further disseminating Category:Australian Football League into Category:Australian rules football leagues by country? I wouldn't have thought so. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

  • Category:British humourous columnists to Category:British humorous columnists – C2A: Yes, this looks correct because of the British spelling of humour. However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary "humorous" is the correct spelling in all varieties of English. See Oxford English Dictionary See: https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1187468962 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose, "humourous" was good enough for Jonathan Swift, and he was a better writer than any of us. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    Seriously? Jonathan Swift has been dead for 280 years. As much as I admire historical research, you really ought to point to a modern dictionary if you are going to oppose this and are not making a joke. If you are joking, well played, you got me. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    @DuncanHill: "Humourous" is definitely incorrect in modern English. "Humour columnists" might be better anyway, but would need a full CfD. Mclay1 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI