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[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 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).
Applying speedy criteria in full discussions[edit]
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.
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:
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 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 295 open requests (refresh).
@Armbrust, clarify what precisely? The split should be at the end and the recent Cfd is that "by city and town" in categories, as @Smasongarrison will note, is now "by populated place". Also, WP:C2C because the subcategories are all titled "Baseball players from...". For example, "Category:Baseball players from New York City". Its the standard form. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I think part of the confusion is that there are multiple elements at play for each of the noms. Omnis it might help if you went through the noms to provide an example for each type. For just looking, I can see city or town -> populated place; moving the stems to the end, and changing people in city in COUNTRY to FOOian people. Aalthough I do agree that c2c does apply, it's a lot to unpack. Mason (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, well there are two basic changes. One is moving the split to the end. The other is bringing them all to one form which is "Baseball players from Foo". I will list one from each category:
@Armbrust, would appreciate a reply so this can either go through or go to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming majority of subcategories in Category:Sportspeople by country and populated place uses the “SPORTSPLAYER by city or town in COUNTRY” format (if it’s not about a specific location) and not the one proposed above. I’m not opposed to replacing “city or town” with “populated place”, but IMO rearranging the title of the categories shouldn’t be done speedily. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust, in which case they all should change. I will wait for the opinion of @Smasongarrison though before I go through with it since split should be at the end. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, should I take this to full Cfd or does the previous Cfd on "by populated place" apply here? Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in line with others changes to actors etc. But a full cfd would allow us to do them all at once. 🤷 Mason (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: the outcome of a previous CfD isn't necessarily a speedy criterion. It only counts if a clear majority of categories were tackled in that CfD. Besides, considering the amount of discussion we already had here, I would take this to full CfD anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I realize the form should actually be "Fooian sportspeople by populated place" so I can adjust accordingly there too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: this is now in the "moved to full discussion" section but a full discussion hasn't been started yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, no idea who did moved it to "full disciussion" - I had moved it to "pending other discussions" while the parent categories were changed from "City or town" to "populated place". Then I was going to bring this to full. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there was an East Frisian polity since 1465, so the Appeal War and the Saxon feud would belong there. But it is not very useful to keep a category for two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. But I think saying the "East Frisians" as a "people" were involved in these battles is misleading. We could resolve this in several ways, such as populating the category, but I couldn't really find much. Emden Revolution, Battle of Jemmingen (didn't involve East Frisia, just took place in its territory), and Stedinger Crusade (but it is arbitrary to consider the Stedingers "Frisians"; it is not commonly counted amongst East Frisia today or in the past.
I do not think this is eligible under C2F and probably needs to go though a full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I think I meant the do it other way around. Eh, both categories deserve to get deleted anyway QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity", "Medieval Latin-language writers", "Old Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers".
This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period. Jim Killock(talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications. Jim Killock(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKillock I know. Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period. NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong. Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old LatinorOld Latin writers. So Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be Category:Writers using Old Latin.
So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --Jim Killock(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this will have to be moved to full then... NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 11 April 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.
