Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 481: Line 481:
:::::In my 17 years at CFD I have never before seen a nomination like his one: a bad faith nom targeting one editor, based on a blatant misapplication of the guideline, supported by a tag team. If we are actually going to discuss such an outrageous nomination, let's make a decision on the whole set. [[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 13:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::In my 17 years at CFD I have never before seen a nomination like his one: a bad faith nom targeting one editor, based on a blatant misapplication of the guideline, supported by a tag team. If we are actually going to discuss such an outrageous nomination, let's make a decision on the whole set. [[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 13:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Tag team? No honest reading of my comments above show me giving Laurel Lodged a rubber stamp. I think you sincerely think these categories should be kept and that you're not a meat puppet of some other editor. Pity I don't get the same [[WP:AGF]] in return. - [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Tag team? No honest reading of my comments above show me giving Laurel Lodged a rubber stamp. I think you sincerely think these categories should be kept and that you're not a meat puppet of some other editor. Pity I don't get the same [[WP:AGF]] in return. - [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Your choice to wholly disregard the "Small ''with no potential for growth''" headline of [[WP:SMALLCAT]] does not in any way suggest good faith. Nor does your decision to support merge because BHG did not personally pledge to promptly populate the categories. [[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::*'''Question'''{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} Are you changing your iVote to "Merge" based on your improvement to this nomination? (If so, this is ''not'' a pointy disruption.). - [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::*'''Question'''{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} Are you changing your iVote to "Merge" based on your improvement to this nomination? (If so, this is ''not'' a pointy disruption.). - [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::*:No, of course I am not changing my iVote. Please ''read'' what I wrote above when I added the extra categories.
:::*:No, of course I am not changing my iVote. Please ''read'' what I wrote above when I added the extra categories.

Revision as of 14:52, 29 June 2023

< June 24
June 26 >

June 25

Category:Ed Block Courage Award recipients

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. This award is given to 32 NFL players a year. User:Namiba 23:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has no use as inline SVG is not supported today. The two templates that appeared here were TFDd (and userfied) accordingly. Suggest deletion without prejudice to some (likely very far-off) future where inline SVG is supported. Izno (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional heart attacks

Nominator's rationale: Having once had a heart attack is not a defining characteristic of any of the fictional characters in this category. This category just serves as an arbitrary list of characters who had heart attacks at one point in their fictional lives, which is not a notable event. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is occasionally defining (e.g. Homer's Triple Bypass) but not very often. If the category is deleted we might move that article to Category:Fiction about diseases and disorders. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename – A lot of the characters on the list (e.g. Roy Evans, Frank Tate (Emmerdale), Bill Webster, Jim Robinson and Derek Branning have died because of the heart attacks and the heart attacks are important attributes to the character especially due leading to the characters' exits. For other character it also essential - for Cleo McQueen, the heart attack was part of the bulimia storyline and is sourced in the development. For Mr. Big (Sex and the City), this is sourced in 2 sections as not only did the character die because of a heart attack, but the storyline made sales of peloton bikes go down due to audiences worrying about getting heart attacks themselves from using them, thus illustrating the real life impact of the heart attack in the show. Additionally, heart attacks are a notable event. Not everyone has heart attacks and it not like a character breaking their arm or having the flu - generally, heart attacks are big deal both in real life and in fiction it is often a big deal for storylines and sometimes even exits. It would be non-sensical to not include but to still include categories such as "Fictional cancer survivors" as they are both health conditions that affected the characters and (more importantly for wikipedia) their storylines. It groups characters that have experienced it together and allows readers to learn about heart attacks in fiction. I am happy to go through each article and expand more about the heart attacks and their impacts with sources over the next coming weeks too to help the project, but I think deleting would be a big mistake. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writers of soap operas have various possibilities to get a character removed from a series and this is an obvious one. A hearth attack is not at all special. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ones I clicked on were all soap opera characters that had a passing reference to a heart attack buried way in the text. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename the category since it is about characters who had heart attacks, not about the heart attacks themselves.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against renaming this to "Fictional characters who have had heart attacks" or something along those lines.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename this is a notable attribute for many characters. It changes characterisation and with the above real-world impacts that DaniloDaysOfOurLives mentioned above, I believe this is a defining event for characters. However, it could do with a rename to "Fictional characters who have had heart attacks" as suggested above. – Meena • 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Meena • 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some comments and a close this time?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Meena • 21:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Wheeling–Steubenville market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Charleston–Huntington market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With regard to Huntington–Charleston, virtually all stations based in Huntington or Charleston are available in both, so they constitute a distinct region usually known by this hyphenated phrase. Both cities are of comparable size, and they're located about fifty miles apart, in a state where all other cities of comparable size (and all others happen to be smaller—the state's two largest cities are relatively close together) are much further away.
As for "West Virginia" being a distinct media market, Huntington–Charleston television stations also extend beyond West Virginia into the Ashland, Kentucky–Ironton, Ohio area, and as far west as Portsmouth, Ohio. But nobody in this area has access to stations in the Wheeling–Steubenville market (which also crosses state lines), or to stations from Beckley, Bluefield, or the eastern panhandle. West Virginia may seem like a small region that can be treated as a unified whole, but in fact most media markets in West Virginia are distinct and localized, usually overlapping with areas of neighboring states, but not with other areas of West Virginia. P Aculeius (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will be all sorts of things that Charleston and Huntington have more in common with each other than with other cities in the same state, that is simply a consequence of drawing arbitrary state borders. It is not meaningful however to have a different geographical category tree for television stations than for any other topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in this instance, there is no distinction between Huntington and Charleston stations—they're identical, and share nothing in common with anywhere else in the state. It's a distinct market that crosses state boundaries—locally known as the "tri-state area" (and I know there are several of these in the U.S.). It makes sense to have a category for these stations that doesn't include those elsewhere; it's not a huge category, but many, many categories are considerably smaller, and it plainly has usefulness for readers. If categories in other states are oversized, maybe they would benefit from subcategorization as well. It makes sense to have categories for New York City that don't include Buffalo just because they're in the same state; I don't know why that wouldn't be desirable for television stations. P Aculeius (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not the same, some are licensed to Charleston, some to Huntington. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance of the locus of their licenses—all of the active stations (and there are only a couple of defunct ones) explicitly serve the Huntington–Charleston market, as well as Ashland, Kentucky and Ironton, Ohio. WSAZ maintains studios in both Huntington and Charleston, and has the largest regional coverage, extending west to Portsmouth, Ohio; WQCW is the CW affiliate owned by WSAZ to serve the same market; WOWK's call letters are for "Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky", WCHS is for "Charleston–Huntington", WTSF broadcasts to the Huntington–Charleston market from Ashland, Kentucky, WVAH was deliberately set up to serve both Huntington and Charleston, WPBY (now part of West Virginia Public Broadcasting) is explicitly the Huntington-Charleston affiliate.
This is a single market extending between Charleston, West Virginia, Ashland, Kentucky, and Ironton, Ohio, with some segments extending as far west as Portsmouth, Ohio. They serve the most populous part of West Virginia and have a fair bit of reach, but the peripheral parts of West Virginia are all parts of different markets that cross state lines—the northern Panhandle and Morgantown are all close to the Pittsburgh market, the eastern Panhandle is closely associated with Washington D.C., the southern and southeastern areas are associated with western Virginia. It makes sense to group the Huntington–Charleston stations as they all cover roughly the same area and have little or no presence beyond it, while stations broadcasting in the rest of the state have no presence in the Huntington–Charleston market. P Aculeius (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Johnstown–Altoona market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Burlington, Vermont

Nominator's rationale: Stations serve most of the state. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Scranton, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: More broadly defined; stations in multiple cities Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: More broadly defined; stations in multiple cities Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Mobile–Pensacola market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Monroe–El Dorado market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the La Crosse–Eau Claire market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Traverse City, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: More broadly defined; stations in multiple cities Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Grand Rapids, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: More broadly defined; stations in multiple cities Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities (Tennessee/Virginia)

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Greenville–Spartanburg–Asheville market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Florence–Myrtle Beach market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Paducah–Cape Girardeau–Harrisburg market

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People by occupation in Northern Ireland

another 246 categories added by BHG 10:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SmallCat since each of these has less than 4 members. Diffusing by place makes sense, by occupation not so much. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ireland has been notified of this discussion.
  • Oppose. Newly-created category, mostly with plenty of scope for expansion. This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination by LL, who is stalking my contribs and has clearly not done any WP:BEFORE.
    This is NOT diffusion by place; it is diffusion by nationality, which is an establsihed series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that most of these categories are for sub-disciplines. But because this is a rushed, vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination, LL had not even taken the time to designate the parent category as the merge targets. That is pretty good evidence that LL also didn't scrutinise the parent categories to test the scope for diffusion. --16:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Note 1 by her own admission, BHG has spent the past 6 weeks making many micro-by-county-by occupation categories. As an editor in Irish space, they have been flashing up on my Watchlist with annoying frequency. Not much stalking needed. No need for Sherlock Holmes either. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • LL< I am making and populating in an iterative process. None of the cats I have created are yet fully populated, and most of them are already well-populated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that these are NOT by-county categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. whether they have "no possibility for growth"
  2. whether they are part of an established series.
I don not believe that you ae acting in good faith and I do not believe that you have done this work. But if you have done the work, it set it out for editors to read. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Request 1 I decline to do so. Why should I be expected to jump over a barrier (logged proof) that is not expected of any other editor? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged: WP:BEFORE is expected of every editor who makes a nomination at AFD, CFD, RFD, TFD etc.
    But thank you for confirming hat did not do the work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I clarified the it was the "logged proof" that I was declining. You may assume, in Good Faith, that the rest was of course carried out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LL, you have provided no explanation of why, for example, you believe that Category:Women mathematicians from Northern Ireland‎ fits the WP:SMALLCAT criteria of:
  1. "no possibility for growth"
  2. not pat of aa established series
Note that Category:Women mathematicians by nationality (36) has 35 subcats. Why do yo believe that is not an established series? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to all for the bad indenting here. I tried to tidy it up but BHG doesn't like anyone interfering with her work, however badly indented it may be. I will desist from any further copyright infringements. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LL, per WP:TPG, don't refactor other people's comments. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TPG explicitly allows "fixing indentation levels". (* should be followed by ** or *:, not :*. See MOS:INDENTMIX.) Oculi (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or see 2020_March_24#Musical_compositions; I knew this had a familiar ring to it. Now that is a huge nomination (and listed on the talk page). Oculi (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oculi: yes, that was where an admin actually removed my post to replace it with one of his own. His stance on indentation has never been repeated by anyone else at any CFD until now, when you chose to try to weaponize it in support of LL's disruptive antics in this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination.
    If my use of the std reply tool was a problem, the there would be uproar all over e.p, 'cos hundreds of editors use it.
    a BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the nominator is not required to do a WP:BEFORE which relates to articles (AFD). These are not articles and it is a merge, not delete. I would suggest a merge in some cases to Category:Biologists from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to see why this needs to be diffused. Another is Category:Computer scientists from Northern Ireland. It is for the creators of these tiny categories to do some prior research on potential numbers. Oculi (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks @Oculi:, that's a sensible suggestion. Looks my Before was not as comprehensive as it might have been. Noms amended per suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LL< there was clearly absolutely NO WP:BEFORE. A second's scrutiny of each category would have shown you that had not selected appropriate merge targets.
    The fact that you were ot even aware of the parent categories is pretty conclusive evidence that you had not checked for any further diffusion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closer Make sure you note that you're being threatened here and not for the first time. I know what you're thinking, "You don't even know who I am or what my close will be." But you see if a CFD goes the "right" way, this is the proper forum but, if not, it by definition has to be moved to WP:RFC. (If that venue's consensus goes the "wrong" way, I assume you have to move it to the village pump; you get the idea.) So go ahead and go through the motions of the pre-ordained closing of this nomination, but don't kid yourself about having any free will here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. There is no "threat". WP:DRV is no some sort of punishment or hostile action.
    The closer will have a difficult task weighing a discussion where some editors wholly ignore the actual content of the guideline they cite. If that guideline-flouting is upheld, then a DRV is the appropriate venue to review that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait for another week to see if the categories are better populated by then. BHG seems quite sure of that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, @Marcocapelle, I made no such assertion. I do believe that some of these categories, such as Category:Women mathematicians from Northern Ireland‎ and Category:Botanists from Northern Ireland‎ have a lot of potential for growth (per WP:SMALLCAT); but others, e.g. Category:Roboticists from Northern Ireland‎ may not.
    However, each of the categories nominated here is part of an established series, and as such are permitted by WP:SMALLCAT without regard to size. That's the basis on which i created them, and is is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work contrary to the guideline, or to demand that I put in a lot of work to satisfy somebody'a arbitrary preference to ignore the long-standing guidance.
    In my work since May on categorising tens of thousands of Irish biographies I have often found that required categories do not exist, esp since I moved on last week to Northern Ireland. Usually I find is when I already have dozens of tabs open, and I have found repeatedly that attempting to fully populate the categories I create along the way causes an exponential growth in my open tabs count, crashing my browser. So I don't usually try at the time to fully populate the part-of-an-established-series categories, and trying to abuse WP:SMALLCAT to demand that I do so would seriously impede my categorisation work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jeez, there's been a lot of drama at CFD lately for the most boring categories imaginable! It's fine to scrutinize editors for doing their homework for mass nominations but it's also fair to ask what work went into creating the many categories in the first place. When I create categories, I first list them in a sandbox and, when I have at least 5 articles, I create the category. I doubt other editors had to wait 5 minutes before my latest award category was populated. Certainly, this involves recategorization on a much larger scale than I do, so maybe my perspective is just too simplistic, I dunno. Moving forward here, I'm totally fine with Marcocapelle's proposal to put this on ice for a week as the creator works to populate them.- RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: please do read WP:SMALLCAT. Like really read it.
    When I create a cat which is not part of an established series (e.g. today's Category:People from Killead, Category:Former churches in Dublin (city) ' Category:Former churches in County Cork), I check for a minimum of 5 articles.
    But I don't do so when the category is part of an existing series, per WP:SMALLCAT, Which these are: see Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation and its 547 Fooers .* from Northern Ireland subcats, and the by-nationality siblings in each case.
    Sadly, some editors in this discussion have chosen to disregard the "existing series" part of WP:SMALLCAT. If they want to modify that guideline, then WP:RFC is thataway, where they can seek a WP:Consensus for the radical change they seek; but in the meantime it is extremely disruptive to misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to abuse it as a weapon to demolish categorisation which accords with both the long-established guideline and established practice. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: My comment called for lowering the temperature of this discussion and giving time to improve the nominated categories. You quite justifiably take the nominator to task for not taking the time to have appropriate merge categories and I would have hoped there would be a similar duty for category creators to initially populate their creations. Your clarification that you're not planning to populate these categories moves my !vote to Merge.
I read the exception in WP:SMALLCAT for “a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme” to be for branches of trees that are generally well populated or I don’t “accept” them. You read the same passage and come to a different conclusion. This type of good faith difference of opnion is why we have CFD! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: are you seriously arguing that "Fooers from Northern Ireland" is not “a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme”? Really really?
Note that Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation has 584 Fooers from Northern Ireland subcats. If 58 is not enough, what's the threshold?
And no I did not say that I am not planning to populate these categories. I do plan to continue to populate categories for people from Northern Ireland an these will of course be part of that. What did say is that I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me into populating them now.
Note to closer Apart from RevelationDirect's implausible rejection of the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme” clause in WP:SUBCAT, their !vote is clearly not founded in the "no potential for growth" headline purpose of WP:SUBCAT. If RevelationDirect (or anyone else) wants to amend WP:SUBCAT to read "small where the creator does not promptly populate them" then they should open a WP:RFC to seek consensus for that radical change, rather than trying to abuse CFD as a weapon to bully me into doing that work now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. No room for collegial discussion, no possibility of compromise, just absolute right and wrong. And my wrongness can’t even be from sincere but misguided viewpoints, bad faith is the only possibility where every iVote that disagrees with you is bullying. I really have nothing against you and, in other situations have really appreciated your work. I have no idea where this is coming from. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is absolutely clear that you flagrantly disregard what the guideline actually says. Sadly, instead of correcting your assertions, you have chosen to make offenc .Please withdraw your deeply uncivil allegation that your decision to misrepresent the guideline is a flaw in my conduct. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could the {{under construction}} hatnote not be utilised for these new ones? Or have I been misusing that when I have stuck it on for a few days til I find time to finish it? Crowsus (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's seems like a good idea! - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crowsus & @RevelationDirect: {{under construction}} is for articles. Its use on these categories would be highly misleading, because the category pages are complete.
The issue here is that the categories are not yet anywhere near fully populated. For that we used to have {{Underpopulated category}} (mostly known as {{popcat}}), but it as deleted per WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 4#Template:Underpopulated_category.
The problem here is is simply that this a malicious nomination by a nominator wo has wholly disregarded the actual wording of WP:SMALLCAT, ignoring bot the "no potential for growth" headline and the "existing series" clause. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only intended for articles, why does its wording automatically change to reflect that it has been added to a category? Crowsus (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Crowsus; I hadn't spotted that. Thanks for the crrection.
But it doesn't alter my point, which is that these category pages are not under construction. The issue here is that the categories are not yet anywhere near fully populated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you left off the first part of your response. Were you mistaken about the under construction template not be usable in the category space? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I have already said I was mistaken about that: I hadn't spotted that. Thanks for the correction BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that; struck my comment. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 246 Categories added. In this edit I am adding to this nomination a further 246 categories.
They all fit same criteria as those stated by the nominator:
  1. They are subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation
  2. They currently contain less than 4 members
This will allow this CFD to uphold the priciple of consistency, by applying the same action to all categories which fit the criteria stated by the nominator.
I made the list by first using Petscan to find all the subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation whose title ends in "from Northern Ireland". My Petscan search found 548 such categories.
Then I made two subpages of this discussion, listing all the categories found by Petscan, and I used the WP:Magic word {{PAGESINCATEGORY:}} to list the size of each category, in a sortable table. Technical limits on the number of parser functions on a page required me to split the list into two parts: part 1 and part 2.
I sorted each of those two lists by number of pages, and selected the categories with fewer than pages.
This brings the total number of categories in this nomination to 256, which as of now is 46.7% of all the "Fooers from Northern Ireland" subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. In other words, applying the nominator's principle consistently will lead to the upmerger of almost half all the "Fooers from Northern Ireland" categories.
As noted in my comments above, I think that this is a terrible and destructive proposal. However, the nominator and some other editors in this discussion want to abuse WP:SMALLCAT by disregarding the "established series" clause and warping the "Small with no potential for growth" purpose of WP:SMALLCAT into "currently small". If that radical change is to be adopted, then it should be applied consistently.
Note also that the 10 categories selected by the nominator were overwhelmingly recent creations by me (most within 48 hours). The categories I have added are not selected by age; many are multiple years old, so they have had much more time to to be populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm struggling really hard to WP:AGF with this expansion and not seeing it as a WP:POINTY disruption. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: please explain how it is WP:POINTy to add to a CFD nomination a set of other categories which fit exactly the same criteria as those stated by the nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing another editor's nomination with such a huge addition, 4 days after the nom was opened, just below complaints about trivial 'refactoring'? I can't recall anything similar in the last 15 years. Open it as a separate nom by all means but this should be reverted asap. (I would support the new nom - I see some Rathfelders in there - although specific unmerge targets would be nice. Smallcat does not permit intersection of every conceivable 'occupation' with nationality. Many of these are not occupations anyway.) Oculi (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I most definitely will not revert.
Why do you believe that a proposal to merge categories selected by specified criteria should be restricted to only a subset of the categories which meet all those criteria?
In my 17 years at CFD I have never before seen a nomination like his one: a bad faith nom targeting one editor, based on a blatant misapplication of the guideline, supported by a tag team. If we are actually going to discuss such an outrageous nomination, let's make a decision on the whole set. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tag team? No honest reading of my comments above show me giving Laurel Lodged a rubber stamp. I think you sincerely think these categories should be kept and that you're not a meat puppet of some other editor. Pity I don't get the same WP:AGF in return. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice to wholly disregard the "Small with no potential for growth" headline of WP:SMALLCAT does not in any way suggest good faith. Nor does your decision to support merge because BHG did not personally pledge to promptly populate the categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question@BrownHairedGirl: Are you changing your iVote to "Merge" based on your improvement to this nomination? (If so, this is not a pointy disruption.). - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, of course I am not changing my iVote. Please read what I wrote above when I added the extra categories.
    As I have already stated very clearly I think that this is a terrible and destructive proposal. I am simply remedying the absurd situation that a proposal to merge categories selected by specified criteria should be restricted to only a subset of the categories which meet all those criteria.
    The only pointiness here is from those who want to apply their weird misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT to a small set of articles selected in bad faith. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this would cause the worlds greatest series of unending edit wars. BHG knows the sensitivity of the Northern Ireland space, so I find this odd. Who decides if someone should go in the British category or Irish category (and why should it as that's a different country so logically they should all go into the British categories)? This is a sensitive space, you cannot go around miscategorising people into one or the other or heaven forbid both. The anarchy such a thing could cause is horrific. As an admin heavily involved in Northern Ireland related topics and areas under no circumstances should someone in a Northern Ireland category be moved to an Irish or British category without careful individual article thought and deliberation. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: As you can see from my many comments above, I agree entirely with your grounds for opposing, especially your emphasis on the WP:NPOV issues. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I misread the proposal and thought BHG had proposed it, which is why I was surprised. Still surprised that Laurel Lodged would suggest it as they're also aware of this. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: Would using European or global categories as the merge targets (instead of British and Irish ones) avoid the sensitivities for this topic area? - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women mathematicians from Northern Ireland are already categorised as both Irish and British via subcats, so this objection applies to the existing set-up. Oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: they are categorised under both Irish and British, but neither Irish nor British appears in the category on the page. That is one of the reasons why "Fooers from Northern Ireland" categories are important, because for some people the label British is obnoxious and for others the label "Irish" is repugnant. Sadly, you support placing those divisive labels on the page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In-Grid

Nominator's rationale: With only articles on albums and songs, already in appropriate subcategories and interlinked, this is overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meta Platforms-related lists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th century assassinated French politicians

Nominator's rationale: There are only 30 people in all in Category:Assassinated French politicians and splitting by century is not justified. I again urge User:Thinker78 to reflect before creating more categories: Category:1930s assassinated French politicians is lacking an important parent, viz Category:1930s assassinated politicians. Also Category:20th-century French politicians is hyphenated so I expect Category:20th century assassinated French politicians should also be. (I will leave the more complicated Category:20th century assassinated French politicians for another nom.) Oculi (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American philanthropists

Nominator's rationale: American philanthropists aren't divided by any other religion or ethnic group. Dream Focus 13:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish philanthropists

Nominator's rationale: We don't have categories for philanthropist for any other religion or ethnic group, only by nation and sometimes region. Dream Focus 13:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1970s assassinated South American politicians

Nominator's rationale: Category:1970s assassinated politicians (0) should be fully populated before any splitting occurs; there is no pressing need to subcategorise a category with only 35 members. In any case, people are not directly categorised as 'South American': Category:South American people is a container category. Oculi (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1930s assassinated Costa Rican politicians

Nominator's rationale: 1 article; and Category:1930s assassinated politicians (0) should be fully populated before any splitting occurs. Oculi (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1960s assassinated African politicians

Nominator's rationale: 1 member; and Category:1960s assassinated politicians (0) should be fully populated before being split. Oculi (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian historical regions outside of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Regions that were never part of Ukraine and simply includes any territories that had Ukrainian settlers. Also WP:NONDEF. Mellk (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of articles is already in Category:Ukrainian diaspora in Russia, e.g. regions in the Far East. Other articles are about regions bordering to Ukraine with a sizeable Ukrainian-speaking population. The word "settlers" is inappropriate in the latter case, it is just that country borders have not been drawn exactly along language borders. Perhaps rename to Category:Geographical spread of the Ukrainian language. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the articles are about regions that today are Ukrainian-speaking while others are about colonies that had Ukrainian minorities but no longer do. As a whole, they cannot be considered "Ukrainian historical regions". Dobruja is also included but I am not sure how this a historical Ukrainian territory, there were only some settlers for a brief period of time. Mellk (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that "Ukrainian historical regions" is inappropriate. But what about the rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it works for now. Mellk (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose that such a concept exists and all these regions have been inhabited by Ukrainians for a long time.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gujjar places

Nominator's rationale: Everyone names places, there's no defining characteristics for it — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer
@Marcocapelle Hello, dear listeners! I do appreciate @DaxServer's contributions and his concern about this Category:Gujjar places being deleted. I have created this category, and this category mostly contains the pages where it is written that this place was named after the Gurjar or Gujjar ethnicity. So this category should not be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for deletion. It may be redirected to another destination with a similar name if possible instead of deletions because this category is important to define the many places that are named after Gurjar,Gurjara, Gujar, or Gujjar ethnic groups. If this category doesn't have any citations, maybe that's why @DaxServer put it on deletions so I can provide some sources on the category page for its verification. If anyone has any other suggestions or processes to oppose the deletion request, I would like to try my luck. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility of the Americas

Nominator's rationale: split per precedent, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_27#Category:Royal_families_of_the_Americas. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People born during Tang

Nominator's rationale: merge, ruling dynasty during one's birth is not a defining characteristic of a person. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If these were actually members of the dynasty, it would be different. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prix des romancières recipients

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DNWAUC, WP:OCAWARD, and WP:NONDEFINING
There's not much here. There's no Prix des romancières main article (and no Novelist Award) but, based on the parent cat, it's from France. There are only two biography articles both of which list this award among other honours so it's not treated as defining. (I copied all the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants find reliable source and create a list article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Voltaire Lectures

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, WP:SMALLCAT, & WP:DNWAUC
There's not much here: there's no main article but a redirect that points to Humanists UK#Lecture series. Once you follow that link, it only has one sentence listing the many lectures that organisation hosts. Bonya Ahmed gave a lecture one year, which her article mentions in passing, but that's WP:PERFCAT. The only other article is a book based on this lecture which is defining but that leaves us with a 1 article category, which is a WP:SMALLCAT. (I copied all the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants find reliable source and create a list article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_25&oldid=1162496996"