This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Speedy renamingorspeedy 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.
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.
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 dashesorvice 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
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 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.
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.
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).
A nomination to mergeorrename, 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.
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 00:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 144 open requests (refresh).
Yep, I wanted to be transparent. Do you remember the more recent one that collapsed the priests and clergy category? Mason (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I do not remember. But as bishops are still priests, I cannot see the need to have both a Priests and a Clergy category. And we do need Clergy as a parent of Bishops. The only exception is Deacons, who are clergy but not priests. But they occur in articles very exceptionally. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put on hold the above two. I've sent the articles to RM as using non-English text in a title for disambiguation isn't helpful. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to remove the non-indian folks, and put them into a new category of Activists for Indian independence. Mason (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like Sarla Behn moved to India, and is categorized in several other Indian FOOian categories. Similar case with Annie Besant. In other words, it looks like they were intentially categorized as being in Indian women categories. Mason (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it's necessary to fully fix the entire parent category structure. The British people could be People from British India. Regardless, it was pretty clear that the category contents reflect Indian women, and are inconsistent with other women activists categories. Mason (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTCC)
Personally, I'd like to eventually make it easier to distinguish between nationality and causes. Category:Women human rights activists is much more clearly about Human rights activists who are women, compared to how we often name Category:Independence activists which could go either way as this conversation has revealed. Mason (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were clear, this would not be an ongoing discussion, and there would not be an entire category tree dedicated to Category:Independence activists by nationality. Mason (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who are still defined by their research in race and intelligence, even if they aren't actively involved in such controversy. The current version implies that they are advocating for the hypothesis in favor, the rename does not imply that they are in favor of the hypothesis. If you want to purge the category, fine, but I think that your opposition in misguided, given how potentially controversial the label is. Mason (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers of the topic are a completely different sort of people in this context, they should never be mingled with people who are actually involved in these controversies. If enough researchers articles exist they should have their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrybak. Looked at a few at the minor planet category. Any link template should be under a sub-category of Category:Link templates. "Utility" is so generic that it is unhelpful, as is the previous "function templates". Probably best to check the contents of each category and see if they are all of a same type, find out which parent correctly fit that type and rename to match. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.