Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming

See

I've moved some older discussion to the talk page. Radiant_>|< 11:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

In category names, any instances of US or U.S. to refer to the United States should be renamed to the United States; any instances of UK or U.K. should be renamed to the United Kingdom.

This proposal is as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style: When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (e.g. "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.. Since categorisation is a form of listing by country, as sub-categories are displayed as a list in parent categories, this policy should apply here.

Thoughts? Hiding talk 11:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. Radiant_>|< 11:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I like "U.S." and "UK", at least in some contexts. I know it's against convention, but I hope convention will change. I haven't tried to change the convention yet because I don't think it would be appropriate during heavy discussion at

Wikipedia:Category titles

.

And the reason I like it is mainly subjective -- it's concise and what I'm used to.

Also, no big deal, but I don't see "U.S. foo" as being part of a list of countries. It's a list of "foo"; the countries are the modifiers. Maurreen (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously I can not speak to your first two points, but on your last point, I believe that when a category titled "U.S. foo" is displayed as a sub-category "foo by country" it becomes part of a list in which the "foo" is the modifier. Hiding talk 07:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, halfway. Where "U.S. foo" is a subcategory of "United States", "foo" would likely modify "United States" (in whatever form). But where it is a subcategory of "foo", then "United States" (in whatever form) would be the modifier. Maurreen (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention states that a name such as "List of famous historians" is undesirable; it should be "list of historians" instead, and any historians that aren't at least somewhat famous should not be in Wikipedia per WP:VAIN. This is also stated here.

For that reason, I would like to propose as a speedy renaming criterion that any category referring to "famous things", "important people", etc. should be renamed to exclude the word "famous", "important", etc. Radiant_>|< 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks obvious enough to be a speedy criteria.Nabla 02:21:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Agree. Hiding talk 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, but you have to be more specific than "etc". Perhaps, "that asserts notability".
  Talk
  22:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, including Superm401's revision. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ideas raised so far for exceptions to speedy renaming for cats that don't conform to whatever standards are decided:

1. Any cats that go to speedy renaming will have a two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to any standard decided upon. However, such an objection should give a clear reason why the consensual speedy renaming criteria should not apply in that case, not simply that the editor dislikes the criteria — if the editor disagrees with the criteria themselves, he should bring those up for discussion. Appropriate reasons include factual accuracy and length. If there is a reasonable objection, the category would be subject to regular renaming.
   1. Common usage?
   2. Other appropriate or inappropriate reasons?
2. If there is a no-consensus outcome after the 2-day period that only then should it get the remaining 5 days (or maybe the full 7).
3. Within two days, there must be an objection (or maybe an objection with an "appropriate" reason) to the speedy by at least two users (or some other number to be determined). Each of these users must have been registered before the speedy nomination was made. (or some other requirement to prevent sockpuppetry)

Sounds too complicated. If it ain't obvious it shouldn't be speedied, what's the hurry? Nabla 02:21:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

• "speedy" does not mean "immediately", it means "without requiring further discussion". The intent of speedy renaming is to hold a discussion about a subject (e.g. "appropriateness of categorization by hair color) once, rather than over and over again whenever a category about it comes up. Radiant_>|< 08:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • If it does not require further discussion then why setting up the rules for a further discussion? Nabla 18:12:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rethinking on this. If a category is speedily renamed, does that prevent it being listed for renaming back? If not, I have no objection to just speedy renaming, with a template that the category had been speedily renamed perhaps placed on the talk page advising that the rename could be re-opened by listing on CFD with the objection. Thoughts? Hiding talk 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this. If something can't be safely applied in every circumstances, it shouldn't be a speedy criteria.

Talk

22:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Note that it would not be speedy in the usual shoot-on-sight sense. There would be a full two-day lag. -Splash 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then the term "speedy" should be avoided rather than extend the meaning. (SEWilco 20:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Good point. It's used here because it's a minor meme on the wiki. Suggestions for a better name are welcome. Radiant_>|< 08:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"a two-day window in which users may state": In what nook will users discover the proposal, and in what cranny will they state something? (SEWilco 20:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• On the top of
  WP:CFD, there is a section where speedies are listed (as is done now) and can be commented upon, or unspeedied by moving them to the main sectin. Radiant_>|<
  10:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does {{
    d}} and {{db}} automagically create a speedy deletion entry in WP:CFD? (SEWilco 14:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC))[reply
    ]
    • Obviously not. But the application of the {{cfd}} or {{cfr}} tag should give necessary watchlist alerts to interested parties, and others who cruise by. It's not being suggested that no notification should be given on the cat page itself. -Splash 14:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A "full two-day lag"!... two days are virtually nothing. What's the hurry? Plus, how will we destinguish "really" speedy renames, which can be done on-sight; from "normal" renames, requiring a full 5 days loong discussion; from not-so-speedy renames, requiring a 2 days announcement? Lets keep thing simple and not too fast (except for the obvious) so to allow a broad community to understand and participate in the process. Just in case I'm not being clear: Let's stick to two concepts only: Speedy (as in shoot-on-sight) and normal (as in requires community input). And let's be extra carefull on what is a speedy on cats since they involve much more work renaming than an article does. Nabla 12:03:21, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Thought I'd propose this after seeing

For that reason, I would like to propose as a speedy renaming criterion that any category referring to "controversial things", "controversial people", etc. should be renamed to exclude the word "controversial". Hiding talk 21:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it just be better to delete such categories, because they're useless?

Talk

22:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Ho hum. Hiding talk 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that most of the times it will end having the same effect. Removing "controversial" out of Category:Controversial religious leaders we get an already existing Category:Religious leaders. Calling it a 'rename' is bound to set up less heated reactions than calling it a 'delete'. Nabla 18:12:12, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Speedy category deletion criteria

Further thought occurs to me. Are there speedy deletion criteria for categories? This might make a good criteria. Thoughts? Hiding talk 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there are (although not particularly many). See
  WP:CSD for details. I would think it a good idea to establish some others, based on precedent after discussing it. Such as this one. There are some others that I can think of, such as classifying things by perceived political view ("conservative people", or "pro-abortion parties"). Radiant_>|<
  10:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I would agree with those too. Are these covered somewhere within [[
  Wikipedia:Categorisation of people? If so we could just enact them as criteria. Hiding talk 12:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • • To my knowledge, no. Also, I'm afraid that Cat'ion of people is frequently ignored by everyone (for instance, the very categories listed as an example of how not to do it, are heavily in use). Radiant_>|< 12:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • I doubt if Categorisation of people is ignored by editors so much as not read by editors. Any categories it prescribes against should be deleted as per it's policy, or if the consensus is otherwise the page should be amended after discussion on the talk page. I don't think it is enough to say it is frequently ignored. Many policies are frequently ignored, capitalisation and spelling for example. Does that mean we abandon those standards? Hiding talk 12:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't mean to abandon it, I simply meant to point out the fact that it's ignored. This is an inherent problem with the Wiki: if, for instance, it is consensually decided that there should not be categorization by gender (Kings/queens issue on that very page), then that won't stop people from using it anyway. The way
  WP:CFD works, and its relatively low profile, means that a small group of users can easily prevent something from being deleted even if consensus is that it should not exist. See for instance Category:Woman composers and the two deletion debates on that. Radiant_>|<
  12:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I suggest enacting any standards contained within as speedy rename or speedy deletion criteria. This would prevent a small group of users over-riding the consensus contained there-in without a community wide discussion. Hiding talk 12:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would be an excellent idea. Radiant_>|< 08:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. If it is an established deletion policy it must be enforceable.
    another way to avoid gaming the system is enlarging, not reducing, discussion periods. The longer, as thus potentially broader, the discussion the more likely that others than a few interested partys enter it and the less likely that a small minority can enforce anything. Nabla 12:30:24, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

• • • I am wary of what I see as too much standardization or too much enforcement. Most of our standards, policies or guidelines allow for flexibility. Maurreen (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the trouble is, at the moment we aren't enforcing our standards enough. I think we all fall into agreement on the fact that there should be a good reason why something doesn't conform to policy. Guidelines carry more leeway, granted, but I think there needs to be some enforcement of standards when things are being done different just because people were not aware of the standard. Otherwise we'd never get the capitalisation policy. If we don't agree to at least maintain the few policies and standards we have, why even pretend to have any? Hiding talk 19:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If (say) it is decided that every member of (say) [[Category:Wuff]] is to be transferred to [[Category:Miaow]], will that transfer be some automatically? Or will someone have to go through every page which is a member of category Wuff manually editing the category entry? Anthony Appleyard 18:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category renames are often done by manually editing all the articles, but can also be done with a bot such as user:beland's user:pearle. user:who has been doing a lot of the manual renames, and I believe now has a version of pearle which is run under the account user:whobot. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]