Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

[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: 

* [[: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 ~~~~

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 01:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 134 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

[edit]

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).

Opposed requests

[edit]
@PadFoot2008: Your ngram uses the singular version of the term. Wouldn't MOS:JOBTITLES apply in this case? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hey man im josh, plural still shows consistency in use of capitalised [2]. PadFoot (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ngram appears to actually not be showing the downcased version, but I'm not understanding why MOS:JOBTITLES wouldn't apply in this situation. It also looks like you created all of the categories yourself, so you must have also thought it should be downcased at one point. Perhaps this nomination would benefit from a CFD instead of a speedy renaming. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS overrides style elsewhere (e.g. evidence from Ngrams). So I think these categories should be left as they are. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have only tagged these categories now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]
  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

November 12

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Presidential elections in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per title of main article - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gravity Rush (franchise)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only 3 real pages that belong here, GR1, GR2 and Kat. I don't think this passes the bar for a franchise category, much as I wish it did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(category creator) For what it's worth, it also contains a navigation template and four files. I think PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale also fits in the category pretty solidly considering all its other franchise categories, and the two real-world people are relevant enough to categorize too, in my opinion. I'll say keep, but I'm fine if it's deleted (admittedly, all I know about Gravity Rush is from Scott the Woz). — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]




November 11

[edit]

Category:Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not help navigation. User:Namiba 21:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rico Adjutant Generals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Correct plural per Category:Adjutants general of the National Guard of the United States StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional elements from anime and manga

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Even though you could add Category:Anime and manga characters thoroughly improve the category, it will only contain just 2 subcats anyway...and besides, the only subcategory right now is Fictional mecha and it's not like that mechas only appears in anime and manga. You're better off to delete this category than to do anything else. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trump administration personnel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale:I think we should differentiate between the first and second go-around for Trump. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What do the Cleveland administration categories look like?SMasonGarrison 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juvenile prisons in England

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Young Offender Institutions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Shouldn't this be merged and redirected? SMasonGarrison 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archives in Togo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to

Category:Culture of Togo Category:Educational organisations based in Togo Category:History of Togo Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Cambridgeshire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Tourist attractions in Cambridgeshire and Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridgeshire.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Blaenau Gwent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Education in Blaenau Gwent and Category:Buildings and structures in Blaenau Gwent.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Anglesey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Education in Anglesey and Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theatres in Latvia by city

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical instruments played with drum sticks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Why do these exist? They are not actual categories like Category:Hand drums or any of the Hornbostel-Sachs divisions. The latter is a duplicate of Category:Hand percussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I admit I do not understand nom's rationale. While Wikipedia rightly uses Hornbostel–Sachs extensively, we need not restrict ourselves to this scheme of categorisation, and nothing in Wikipedia:Categorization supports doing this. Nor do guidelines mention actual categories (or have I missed it?) whatever these are. On the other hand these categories each refer to a defining characteristic. At the very least, nom should clarify their rationale and relate it to the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note that Andrewa is the creator). To clarify using formal Wikipedia terms, none of these categories are defining per WP:DEFINING. In fact, to say a snare drum can be categorized by its beater is wrong. Sure, it is played with sticks, but also soft timpani mallets, brushes (a type of specialty beater), and rutes. Hell, see Swerve by Gene Koshinski. The snare is played with hands, a triangle beater, and a door stop, and it is among the more popular solos for the instrument. The implements used to play percussion are non-defining given the nature of the instrument family and can be confusing for readers. Bongos is a hand drum but it is also incredibly common to play with sticks. I could place nearly any percussion instrument into all three of the first categories and it would be, to a certain extent, correct. Thus, these categories are useless. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is no secret that I created this category. Nor is it relevant. I still get a !vote. Or do you see it as a COI?
    A snare drum is certainly played with beaters other than sticks... I regularly use rutes. But it can also be played using sticks, and most normally is. This distinguishes it from tympani and the conga for example. (In fact playing either of these with sticks risks damaging the head. I suppose it's no worse than a prepared piano but please don't try it.)
    So to say that to say a snare drum can be categorized by its beater is wrong is itself wrong, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be WP:POINTY, but if I wanted to, using reliable sources, I could put nearly all percussion instruments into all of these categories (like I said above). And what defines a "specialized beater" versus "drum stick" versus "soft mallet"? This is another issue with these categories. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be pointy. Just provide these reliable sources. All you have said so far is that you don't like these categories. Andrewa (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question of whether Category:Hand drums... is a duplicate of Category:Hand percussion (as nom seems to think) is a separate issue, but as the owner of several hand cymbals I have an opinion on this too. I thank nom for bringing it to my attention... some suspended cymbals are played and intended to be played by hand, for example my awesome Paiste Traditionals 11" thin splash (scroll down to it). So some work is needed on the hand cymbals redirect... Also created I notice by the nominator of these deletions. I am investigating sources and should have them to hand in a few days... See User:Andrewa/percussion sources. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am beginning to understand. Nom wants to use only Hornbostel-Sachs classifications as musical instrument categories, I think that's what they mean by not actual categories above. While the H-S classification is very useful, and in my opinion is correctly the one used in the musical instrument sidebars created by Template:Infobox instrument and its clones, it's not the only useful classification system and some of its terms and uses are esoteric... just for example clarinets are percussive in their terminology, while castinets are not. As a general encyclopedia, we should try to use terms and categories that our readers will understand.
To say that a snare drum is not normally played with drum sticks is as ridiculous as saying that a saucepan is not normally used for preparing food, and deleting Category:Cooking vessels on the grounds that cooking vessels can also be used for mixing paint.
And I think this saucepan analogy is useful in exploring the notion of defining characteristics. One of the defining characteristics of a saucepan is that it is a cooking vessel. But it is not always used for cooking. One of the defining characteristics of a snare drum is that it is played with drum sticks. Most snare drums are never played in any other way. But on occasions, they can be and are played with other beaters. The Top Secret Drum Corps regularly use fireworks. But most of the time even they use regular drum sticks. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need outside participation to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century American fashion designers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duel merge: Underpopulated category, and per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_3#Fashion_designers_by_century SMasonGarrison 04:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian-American Anarchists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. Non-defining intersection. If not merged, it should be renamed to American anarchists of Italian descent SMasonGarrison 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English radicals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Diffusing not needed for these underpopulated categories. SMasonGarrison 03:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Quebec

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to justify, not useful for navigation. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 10

[edit]

Category:Supermarkets of Algeria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a list article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet memes from China

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention in Category:Internet memes by country. Iostn (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Both depreciated and no longer used anywhere on articles. Both stub templates have been replaced with more specific stub templates for the various types of football articles. The Football-stub was being used on one article which I removed it from and replaced it with a more relevant one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations based in Latvia by city

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, only contains the capital Riga. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film scores by composer

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current name does not reflect the category’s content. It includes articles about films only, not about scores or soundtracks. The current state also creates issues with transitivity. Solidest (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gardening books

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to use 'about', per parent Category:Works about gardening. This variant is more clear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1954–55 Montreal Canadiens season

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I could not find any other example of a professional sports team season getting its own category in any of the Northern American major leagues. There seems to be no other examples of a category being made for this even under similar circumstances (e.g. the Vancouver Canucks where all three of their finals appearances have the loosely-related articles of Towel Power (1982), 1994 Stanley Cup riot, and 2011 Stanley Cup riot). It is inconsistent and seems to fail WP:OVERCAT. RedBlueGreen93 08:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators of the Quran into Somali

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. 2x merge for now SMasonGarrison 02:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:January 2005 events in Puntland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Convert into the broader country rather than the state SMasonGarrison 02:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Death in Mogadishu

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location. Also, there is only one page here, which isn't helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mogadishu Central Prison

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is one page about an event here; there is not even an eponymous page Mogadishu Central Prison SMasonGarrison 02:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astronomy research agencies in the Antarctic

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge for now. Narrow underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths in the French colonial empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 02:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal deaths in Ohio

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. There's only one state like this, it's not helpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 01:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides in the United States by location

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These categories would be more helpful in the parent category SMasonGarrison 01:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State urban development authorities of India

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Of the 64 articles in the category, only 7 are state authorities. The rest are a mixture of city, town and metropolitan area authorities. It would make the category name more accurate by removing the "State" identifier Gedrose (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American slave trade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to cover the same scope BaduFerreira (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose. Per Marco Procedurally, the merge target is too broad. SMasonGarrison 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Important Cultural Properties of Obama City

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation. There's not a Obama City parent category SMasonGarrison 14:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good solution to me SMasonGarrison 02:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kenton, Devon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and an article about a historic property, better categorised in the district category. AusLondonder (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Crouch, Swale's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitnash

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and a biography, both are already appropriately categorised. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Crouch, Swale's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biography does not belong here, per WP:COPSEP, it is appropriately in Category:Clergy from Warwickshire. The football club (article and subcategory) is likely to move away from Whitnash soon, it is barely a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: perhaps we need more guidance on the number of pages a topic category or other categories should contain/could contain given SMALLCAT was deprecated. Whitnash parish had a population of 10,489 in 2021 but Stanhope had only 4,436 but Category:Stanhope, County Durham has 56 pages and a sub category. I'm not of the mind that we should keep all categories except those like Category:Churches in Kenton, Devon for example that would probably only even contain 1 page as most villages only have 1 or 2 churches but most villages/parishes like Kenton would probably be able to have a list of listed buildings and several would probably be clearly notable even if we assumed not every listed building was notable per WP:GEOFEAT and there would probably be one or 2 other things in the parish or something else associated with the village so add to a category. Consider Category:Grassington which until recently had only 2 articles other than the main article but now has a total of 10 articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 9

[edit]

Early centuries in Somalia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, poorly populated categories (apart from the subcategories) and Somalia did not even exist yet. The subcategories are already in Category:13th-century African people etc. The articles are already in Category:Somali empires but if the merge goes ahead they should also be added to Category:13th century in Africa etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1868 elections in the North German Confederation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated single-entry category with no clear potential for growth. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1867 elections in the North German Confederation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated two-entry category with no clear potential for growth. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Shizuoka

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No actual users and points to a disambiguation page. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aplochitonidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Taxon renamed. See Talk:Aplochitoninae#Requested move 3 November 2024 YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support To match the name of the taxon. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical culture

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Roblox developers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function - WP:OC/U#narrow. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't contest if other editors find the categorization too niche, but I would like to argue that its meant to better organize editors who have a technical background with Roblox as a platform and engine, especially as there are multiple Roblox games listed in the Roblox category and the List of Roblox games page on Wikipedia. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Plum Springs, Kentucky

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serious games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/overlapping SMasonGarrison 12:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupations SMasonGarrison 12:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This category was nominated on 3 Nov 2024 with a consensus to delete.

Wrong names of assessment categories for the Philippine music task force

[edit]

I recently tried organizing the Philippine music task force of Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines by fixing the talk page banner, adding an article alert system, and assessment categories. After creating all the categories, there were no articles showing up in any of the quality assessment categories. And after reading the banner documentation, I figured that the 

 |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Philippine music task force articles

parameter in the talk page banner may be at fault. I'd like to request for these quality assessment categories be moved to its respective names, accordingly, since the importance assessment categories with the similar naming structure as to the parameter works just fine. It's my first time having to do such, and unfortunately it went to no good. Thank you very much and I apologies for the hassle dealt. – Relayed (t • c) 11:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demon superheroes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The combination of demon and superhero does not appear to be defining, at least without evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes who are adopted

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization, while it might be a common trope it is still not defining that one is BOTH a superhero and adopted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superhero schoolteachers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining - made by blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 12:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional males by franchise

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Few to none of the things in here qualify as a franchise, making this category misleading. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The title of this category, as written, can encompass most fictional characters ever created. It clearly means "fictional extraterrestrials from within the Solar System", but I'm not sure it passes WP:NONDEF compared to often-used beings like Martians and Venusians, for which there are subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category clearly does not include people from Earth. Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Earth is part of the Solar System, how is that clear? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial robots

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF as, while they are a character type that appears from time to time, there does not seem to be something defining about the combination of extraterrestrial and robot in particular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thulinverken vehicles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with Justapedia origins

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Apart from being a 99.99% WP mirror - for our purposes, Justapedia is merely another crowdsourced platform that should not be used as a source for anything, so there should be no "articles with Justapedia origins". Pointless category. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages written in Latin script

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category, as one that is a decade old, is not even implemented correctly; currently, it is more dependent on subcategories than pages in the category itself, but even then some languages like Indonesian or Filipino aren't even included there. However this trait should not be defining because Latin is the most common writing system. This category still does contain some languages that aren't written in the Latin script by standard, such as Hassaniya Arabic or Meitei, but I don't think trait is defining either. Other categories under Category:Languages by script may be kept, or maybe they'll be deleted as if writing systems as a whole are not defining. You decide. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem for including per-language subcategories as members rather than pages? In fact there should not even be any "page" (i.e. Galeries on Commons). Galeries are not relevant very for languages that have many aspects.
That category is relevant especially for languages that are commonly written with several scripts, and there's a need to subcategories per script (Latin being one of them), and then properly index the contents written in each script (so not all per-language categories need to be members, as most languages have a default script and there's still no need to distinguish them; but that's not even treu for English which is multiscript, even if Latin is its default).
This category should just be fed (very slowly) according to the IANA or CLDR databases and their related use in BCP 47 where categorizing per script is needed: if we categorize English written in Deseret, and list English as a member of "Language written in Deseret script", then we still need to list it also as member of "Languages written in Deseret script". As well we cannot assume a single script in many languages (not even Arabic! Which is also written in the Latin script in some wellknown Arabic variants, and for which case we have distinctive contents in Commons, that we do not want to mix with other Arabic-Arabic contents where we'll have difficulties to locales Arabic-Latin contents, jsut like we'll have difficutlies to locate English-Deserrt contents if they are all mixed deeply within English-Latin contents.)
Even if the Latin script is the most widely used one in the world, we don't want to place any image in that Category:Languages written in Latin script. All that is designed is to have subcategoeies members (and notably languages that are known to be written in mutliple scripts). We don't need per-language galeries as members (even if there are a few ones, these galeries should just be members of their own category to be listed as members). So that category should only contain subcategories, not galeries, not files for images/logos/symbols/audio/video that all should be placed in relevant subcategories of the per-language category (and possibly of the language-script combination category). Commons is not a videogame to play with for your convenience in Antarctica, it is for educational purpose.
Your statement also about "Hassaniya Arabic" is wrong: it is also written in the Latin script (as a standard in a wellknown country where it replaces the Arabic script in frequent cases). The same remark applies to Meitei (as written in Assam where the Latin script more common than the Meitei Mayek script for that language, even if it is not recognized officially, just because the language itself is still not recognized locally in order to promote the Bengali-Assamese script). It is a clear sign that you make this deleteion requrest based on false unchecked assumptions about how languages are written. And this is perfectly why such category by script is useful: it helps collecting facts that are countering such false assumptions, and make these facts more visible and easier to locate. This category will then grow very slowly but surely as needed as we get medias about them and categorize them properly to avoid them being lost in the mass where your assumption takes its root. Commons is especially useful when it collects medias that are otherwise difficult to find and study.
The fact that this categotry is "old" is not relevantat all as a criteria for deletion. The fact it has few members and thuis count progresses very slowly is aldo not relevant at all (this is per design), and this does not hurt at all but improves the indexing of Commons, to distinguish contents per language-script and locate them correctly (by helping finding language-script combinations when they are more rare and precious). verdy_p (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Can you please be more concise? This is a lot of text to ask volunteers to dig through. SMasonGarrison 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Shorinji Kempo practitioners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too small to be necessary, made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional sambo practitioners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too small to be necessary. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melee weapons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Given melee weapon was deleted, this category in itself is facing a crisis. I suggest a merge for any applicable articles, as it is no longer a viable means to categorize things. This also includes any subcategories reading "melee weapons" to be merged into their respective nation subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seneca clans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Clans are shared between Iroquois nations (for example, a Mohawk Wolf Clan member, an Oneida Wolf Clan member, and a Seneca Wolf Clan member are all considered part of the same clan, see here and here), and these categories are currently very small with only one of them having more than 3 entries, so populating them with clan members from the other Iroquois nations would be beneficial. 69.159.15.16 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support; however, would Category:Beaver clan of the Haudenosaunee, etc., be preferable to use?. Yuchitown (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter Flass (talk)

Category:Fictional taijutsuka

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Pointlessly specific category that I'd be surprised isn't original research for all involved. Made by disruptive account. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English Olympic medallists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent deletion of Category:Californian Olympic medalists based on the fact that California and England and Scotland and Wales do not field Olympic teams, this category should be deleted. This came up in the discussion on California by editor @Marcocapelle:. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Scottish Olympic competitors etc. Those should probably be nominated too, but in the meantime it is a valid location for all the medalists. Crowsus (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are no album or song redirect schemes such as there is for television episodes (e.g. Category:Episode redirects to lists). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are tens of thousands of these redirects in Category:Redirects from songs that really should be further organized in some way, for maintenance purposes if nothing else. I have been working with the songs, albums and redirects of this artist and have found it helpful to organize the dozens of related redirects. I don't see the need for deletion, and actually I'm encouraged to create a scheme.— TAnthonyTalk 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But assuming this idea will horrify the music redirect community, I can accept a consolidation to Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects.— TAnthonyTalk 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find it helpful for what? What are you looking for by categorizing variations on the title of L'amore è una cosa semplice created as redirects? Any actual redirects (not misspellings, miscapitalizations, etc.) for albums or songs that are listed in the discography or track listing can be merged to the parent albums/songs category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I admit I do not understand what Marcocapelle means by a "maintenance process" – what would you like to see in order to support keeping/merging the categories? If you support keeping/merging the category, is that something that can happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rutulian film people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers SMasonGarrison 02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Bearcat's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging to the highest level. SMasonGarrison 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Hoboken, New Jersey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Five entries (one of which is a redirect) as of relisting. Is that enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrator recall

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The usual issue with ambiguously-named non-content categories. I would have sent it to speedy but wasn't sure if this was an uncontroversial "established naming convention" under criterion C2B. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Categories and we have consensus for these changes. We did not necessarily need a formal proposal for this. Anyone should be free to move them directly Soni (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1876 life peers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed at speedy. This rename aligns with the subcategories and is generally more clear. Pinging people from CFDS: @Ravenpuff, Fayenatic london, and Stephan Leeds. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as original nominator: Stephan Leeds's argument (below) doesn't quite work because this category contains peers rather than peerages; thus the category tree name is already correct and changing it would make it inconsistent with other similar category. "Created" can only mean "elevated" in this context, not "born", as witnessed by e.g. Category:Life peers created by Elizabeth II. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion


November 8

[edit]

Category:Cape Verde–United Kingdom relations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing no main article and no articles at all. Subcategories already exist in sufficient category trees. Empty category is unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of the Rhine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, from 1806 to 1813 Germany was called Confederation of the Rhine but it did not include Austria and Prussia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; allowing extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Highly overlapping categories, that aren't helpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on UnitedStatesian's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the alternative for Warner is delete. SMasonGarrison 12:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boxborough, Massachusetts

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and a redirect, not useful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Namiba's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical looping technologies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: From previous discussions and new research (from article), these specific technologies look to be chemical processes meant to act as a method of carbon capture. @DMacks I would appreciate input regarding the chemistry side — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalBear (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was some pre-discussion on my talk page about procedural stuff. Pinging participants from the previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, DMacks, and Smasongarrison. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Purge as well as merge. This is a new category which duplicates another and also conflates Judaism and Israel. User:Namiba 16:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novara Media

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Little more than a WP:PERFCAT. Association with individuals listed is undefined, see WP:OCASSOC. --woodensuperman 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of William Jennings Bryan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: William Jennings Bryan was one of many notable family members so I think centering him is not the best way forward. It is Category:Bryan family (William Jennings Bryan family) in Wikimedia Commons. User:Namiba 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are other categories on Wikipedia named like you're proposing? SMasonGarrison 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some. See Category:Eliot family (United States) and Category:Morton family (United States).--User:Namiba 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This appears to be a fairly common formulation for categories relating to relatives or other topics concerning famous individuals, such as presidents of the United States, industrialists, etc. The proposed alternative, "Bryan family", would tend to attract unrelated persons named "Bryan" unless formulated as in Wikimedia Commons. However, that formulation seems rather pedantic—though it may well have a good reason for being so in that case, since there are probably quite a lot of photographs relating to William Jennings Bryan and his family, and it might be the product of a merger between related categories. There is no compelling reason why the corresponding category at Wikipedia needs to use the same formulation, though it may be advantageous to link the categories. The current title here is clear, concise, and logical. Let's keep it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian-century Fooian male/women classical pianists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse at the 5-way intersection of nationality, gender, century, instrument, and genre, especially since there isn't a FOOian-century male classical pianists or FOOian-century women classical pianists parent. SMasonGarrison 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pleuronectiformes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The flatfish are now considered to be a subgroup of Carangiformes by recent sources (including Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes, which the fish wikiproject has decided to follow). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pleuronectiformes-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See post above for justification. And the stub category should be moved to Category:Pleuronectoidei stubs. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional space units and formations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only has one actual space unit, Starfleet. The others are just fiction that happens to contain a space organization, but this fails WP:NONDEF. Depending on whether one might consider Starfleet "military", it could just be moved to Category:Fictional government agencies or Category:Fictional organizations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fuji TV

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Official full station name VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional astronomical objects

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be somewhat redundant, no real evidence we need a category for objects specifically as it is hardly populated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Librarians from Puerto Rico

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Aligning with other subcategories of Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation ForsythiaJo (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 7

[edit]

Category:Rutulian male boxers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Set of one-entry categories for a not-inherently notable intersection of characteristics. Rutuls are an ethnic group who live in Dagestan or Azerbaijan, not a "nationality" in their own right, but these were all created as nationality categories and had to be moved out of incorrect "X by nationality" parents -- but "ethnicity intersected with occupation" categories are not automatically created for every possible combination of those traits that describes just one person, so these aren't warranted until there are a lot more than just one person to file in each of them.
The existing Category:Rutul people (which also won't be large enough to need diffusion even with these people moved into it) is all that's required in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Was opposed at speedy by @Altenmann: by the creator a similarly named user, in spite of the fact that there is no other category in Category:20th-century Russian people by occupation that uses the Russian Empire naming convention SMasonGarrison 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People charged with crimes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category's existence seems like a pretty blatant WP:BLPCRIME violation. We should not associate or categorize people with crimes unless they are convicted and it's a major point of notability for them. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the nom... I noticed this category from Category:People criminally charged for acts during the January 6 United States Capitol attack which is fairly dubious considering the existence of Category:Convicted participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Also note that the latter category (Suspected criminals) was discussed 7 years ago with no consensus. Reconrabbit 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional planets by work

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two categories in here now, making it fairly small. I posit that these two subcategories should be merged into Fictional planets, at least until way more exist (if ever). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures by decade of destruction

[edit]
a bunch more years
a bunch more decades
a bunch more centuries
a bunch more sports venues
Nominator's rationale: Following up from [[6]], we've completely messed this up, and we need to revert it. I only saw this due to my watch list and asked the closer about it, who told me to file a new CSD.

First "Demolish" means to "to completely destroy a building, especially in order to use the land for something else," meaning that it does encompass buildings which are destroyed non-voluntarily, whereas "destroy" means to "damage beyond use." It's pedantic, but the "completely" is important here. Secondly, a "destroyed" building in usage typically means a building that was rendered useless due to some sort of external factor. A quick search shows "destroyed in fire", discussion of building collapses, or discussion about the process of demolition. There's a reason building infoboxes uses "demolished" for date instead of "destroyed..." - it is a far more precise term.

Furthermore buildings can be either demolished, destroyed, or both. As an example, the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch was destroyed in 2011 by the earthquake, but not demolished until 2012. A castle may have been destroyed in one century and the ruins demolished in another century. A building completely destroyed by fire or bombed would not have been demolished, whereas a voluntarily demolished building was not destroyed.

I do agree with renaming the top level category, but I've categorised a lot of these, and I believe we desperately need to restore these categories for buildings which were voluntarily demolished, for the same reason we have separate categories for collapsed buildings. Destroyed buildings should have their own separate category structure. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question The last discussion was closed earlier today, so I'm not sure if a consensus is likely to be reversed so soon. Is there a broader term that more clearly conveys the intent of including both the deliberate and unintentional end to buildings? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer recommended another CfD, I think in part because we'd have to un-do all of these. (Interestingly, I was only pinged after I opened this discussion - I would have strongly opposed the change in the other discussion.) We had separate categories by year for both demolished buildings and collapsed buildings, so essentially my proposal is to revert this back to demolished, which definitionally encompasses destroyed, and is a more precise term. The next step would be to create a separate structure for burned/bombed buildings by year/decade/et cetera.
    The category is in desperate need of organisation, reverting would be the first step. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain the reason why I opened the previous nomination for renaming. On Wikipedia there were no other categories by year/decade/century to display buildings that ceased to exist. The only common root we have is Category:Former buildings and structures with no split by dates. So I assumed that these categories were freely populated. I checked the cases where the infobox said 'Destroyed' (given that you can specify both the destruction and the demolition date), but the article was placed in the "Demolished by year" category. And I found pretty enough cases, for example Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) or see this restricted search. I've also checked 1942-1944 categories and found some buildings that were destroyed during WWII, but were demolished years later, but the article was still categorised by the destruction date, such as Lafayette transmitter. Or St. Florian's Cathedral that was destroyed in 1944, but not demolished, and still placed in the category. I also said at the time that the root category had the description 'deliberately demolished' at the top, which had been there from the start of the category in 2006. So I concluded that this was not being followed and that these categories were being filled in freely, being just the opposite of the date of construction of the buildings. I still think it is better to leave them as they are now. And I'm not sure it's worth categorising by both the date of destruction and the date of demolition at the same time (due to WP:OVERCAT), because the moment when a building burns down or is destroyed seems to be more relevant to the encyclopaedia than the moment when its site was formally cleared and emptied by administrative authorities. Solidest (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Christchurch, NZ is a great example - the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch was destroyed (rendered beyond repair) in 2011, but demolished in 2012. We currently have it as "destroyed in 2012." You are also incorrect, there are separate category structures for different types of buildings ceasing to exist - see Category:Building and structure collapses by year as a separate directory structure. These buildings were "destroyed" but not "demolished." I agree with you - "destroyed" could be spun out from "demolished," but as I've said before "demolished" DOES definitionally encompass "destroyed." I also don't see any issue with Lafayette transmitter, as the final demolition date was 1953. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lafayette transmitter was destroyed in 1953, but people put the 1944 category by the date of destruction, that's the problem. My whole post above is about people putting burned/destroyed/collapsed/demolished dates into these categories without giving meaning to the type of destruction. I'd probably agree that "destroyed" isn't the perfect word to cover all these cases either, but the categories obviously don't just include demolished buildings. Somewhere you corrected the demolition dates, but many other people, like in my examples above, put random destruction cases in there. "Collapses" also doesn't fit here as a generalised term, as it's more about buildings falling down on their own. Solidest (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprisingly it turns out that it was you yourself who put in the Lafayette transmitter the date of the destruction instead of the demolition a year ago which only emphasises the problem with these categories, as this is far from being an individual incident. Solidest (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising. I've categorised a lot of these, and the sources specify that the station as "destroyed" in 1944 but the "final pylon" was demolished in 1953. (There's a chance that article wouldn't survive an AfD, either.) The Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) was demolished, the infobox needs to be updated. Infobox building has two options: demolition_date, the "Date building was demolished"; and destruction_date, the "Date building was destroyed, generally by a natural event or war." These are separate. Just because users sometimes aren't accurate isn't a reason to make an entire category structure less accurate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well when you have a choice between demolished or collapsed for cases like World War II or for natural disasters or other incidents, it's not the inaccuracy of people, it's the lack of choice for almost 20 years that causes the category to lose meaning from the original according to its content. Solidest (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this remains as an all-encompassing category, "demolished" is still a much better definitional descriptor than "destroyed" as I've pointed out previously. I still maintain the correct thing to do, similar to the info box, is to split this out, but that would require reversion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend back Sorry but the original change from Demolition to Destruction is just nonsense. They are clearly two different meanings. Demolition is when a building is purposefully taken down either due to structural failure or building something else on the site. You would not say that Wembley Stadium was destroyed in 2003 to make way for the new Webley Stadium. Destruction is when something is deliberately destroyed by humanity or is destroyed by an act of nature. Therefore the original closure to destroyed is just silly and inaccurate use of the English Language (no matter what side of the pond you are on).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not split? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I lot of these years are already pretty thin; I was hoping for a broad term. (Not sure if that's the consensus though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A split would be great, I'd be happy to work on that, but if we agree to a split these need to be reverted as the vast majority of these buildings were demolished and not destroyed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My only concern with a split would be that we may find contentious arguments of what is demolished and what was destroyed. I am now leaning to change it to "demolished or destroyed", which covers both angles.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of time a fire/hurricane/earthquake damages a building so it's not feasible to repair, then what's left is demolished. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The destruction date and demolition date could be different, too. If it's a year apart, we probably just want the destruction date, but if there's a castle which was razed in the 17th century and then the ruins demolished 200 years later, we may want to categorise both dates. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to status quo ante or however you wish to put it. Demolition is a subset of destruction and this renaming reduced precision.  — Scott • talk 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either split, or rename to use demolished or destroyed per Davidstewartharvey's above suggestion. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EastEnders locations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION that includes only one real article, and a redirect to that same article. Jontesta (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:EastEnders - At least move the one actual article over. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Gwynedd

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Gwynedd.

Sole remaining subcategory of the Restaurants in Wales tree, contains only two articles one of which is a "self-catering holiday home". AusLondonder (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic bishops in Nigeria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories seem to cover the same subject Isoceles-sai (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepal Premier League teams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, as of the 3 articles in there, 1 has previously been deleted and re-created, and the other are at WP:AFD right now. Thus, there are no useful articles for this category, as the team articles are either being deleted or redirected to the main Nepal Premier League article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peplum films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: They basically deal with the same genre, the Sword-and-sandal, which in fact is the main page for both categories, and which says The terms "peplum" and "sword-and-sandal" were used in a condescending way by film critics. Peplum film is currently a redirect to Sword-and-sandal. Cavarrone 09:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Speaking as a connoisseur of cult films, and the terms "peplum" and "sword-and-sandal" are effectively interchangeable in modern film use, rendering the category completely redundant. Carguychris (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have received a AfC welcome message

[edit]
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: rename to Category:Wikipedians who have received an AfC welcome message. Speedy rename per criteria C2A. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: grammar –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename under WP:C2A. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (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:Marvel Comics film characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category's description is for "Film characters based on Marvel Comics", although in recent months, it has become populated by an absurd amount of articles for the comic characters themselves, with many of those being for characters only RECENTLY being featured in some mass media. This cat has primarily operated as a holding for the three current subcats which are actually for film adaptations of these characters. This cat is repeatedly readded to articles on the comics versions and I am requesting full deletion as the current subcats handle all relevant media adaptations in film, or, if that does not pass, then I would request this cat to be purged and converted into a formal holding cat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: I would also like to note that the creator of this cat, User:Dietic, has a history of making similar categories as this one for Marvel adaptation characters that were overcategorized on the comics articles and were subsequently deleted in the past few years, many of which may be viewed via their talk page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shompen language

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only subcategory is Category:Linguists of Shompen, which has been nominated for deletion. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguists of Shompen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The Shompen language is hardly even documented, so it is not possible to be a linguist specializing in Shompen. Blench and Sidwell, the only two linguists in the category, only wrote brief papers speculating on the classification of Shompen based on some earlier poorly presented materials. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle royale

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Considering its disparate parents Category:Combat sports and Category:Fiction about death games, it's unclear what the scope of this category is supposed to be, and seems like a case of unrelated subjects with shared names. Since most of the content is about the fiction genre, suggesting to purge Category:Professional wrestling battle royales to Category:Combat sports and rename the remaining category to Category:Battle royale genre, per the relevant section linked to from Battle royale genre. Paul_012 (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Brazil

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Does not have use for navigation, all sub cats have 1-2 articles. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
In my humble opinion, categories are mainly useful for classification.
For navigation, Navigations templates are more suitable.
Thanks for your attention.
BTH (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christianity in Sussex

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Most content is at the level of East Sussex and West Sussex, so these are not currently helpful for navigation. Leave redirects to discourage re-creation. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft with counter-rotating propellers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are many, many relevant ways to categorize aircraft. This is not one of them. The "handedness" of an aircraft's propellers is, in the vast majority of cases, not a defining trait of an aircraft, for many older types it may be difficult or impossible to determine, and some aircraft types had some variants with "handed" (counter-rotating) propellers, and others without. In short, this isn't something that is defining for an aircraft type, and should not be categorized accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Myroslav Skoryk

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories with the one "compositions by" subcategories, which contains all related articles to the eponymous subjects, thus this becomes a redundant layer of categorization/navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not help navigation. All articles are already in basketball venues category so a dual merge is not needed. User:Namiba 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment Since it was relisted in order to clarify deletion vs. merge, I don't think this is defining at all, rather than just being a problem with the subcategory, so I'd favor deletion. (A merge would still be preferable to no action though.) @Marcocapelle and Namiba: Note the relisting comment for which your input is appreciated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with deleting so long as McCamish Pavilion is added to the Georgia Tech basketball category. It is an on-campus arena and basketball is its primary tenant. The other two are not defined by Georgia Tech as they are off-campus general purpose arenas.--User:Namiba 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I am going to nominate all the Fooian sportspeople of Bar descent cats in due course after all the British ones were upmerged, seems no difference between them and other countries. This one is a level deeper, to a specific sport, and is not defining in any way for either the individuals or their heritage as significant to their sport careers. Crowsus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 6

[edit]

Category:Inauguration of Donald Trump

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Well, there's two of them now. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidency of Donald Trump

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ugh.

Per the 2024 United States presidential election. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Definitely. We should do the same for the other things involved with his tenure too. Vinnylospo (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Kiphire district

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing just one article. Unhelpful for navigation. Merge to parent, already categorised in other parent. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can I understand the rational for merging? If it is because there is only one related article, then do we have any guidelines saying we shouldn't create a category with one article and with the possibility of inclusion of many more articles as and when they are created? Such creation helps users to categorise easily instead of creating the articles in a broader category.
It's good to be streamlined rather than waiting for symptoms to appear to take actions. Pls note, I am not saying we should create empty categories! Thaejas (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A category containing only one article is simply useless for navigation. It serves no purpose. If more articles are created or located, no objection to re-creation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ikusaka, Nagano

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article, an an article about a national park, both of which are already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useful category, for grouping of articles about Japanese municipalities, with links also to equivalent categories in other language Wikipedias. Please find something else to do rather than (proposal of) deletion of useful content and wasting of time. Same for other Japanese municipality-related listings here by the same User, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a category containing two articles, with one being the main article, useful? This is a village of less than 2000 people. How does it aid navigation, which is the purpose of categorisation? AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of New South Wales

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state); unneeded and clone subcategory, except the NSW one excludes New South Wales R set, which to me is only a marginal difference. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded subcategory of Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia, and a complete carbon copy of the Category:Electric multiple units of Victoria (state). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Charlie Chaplin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. The category tree Category:Wives by person is only usually used for royalty as people are not defined by their spouses, and they are notable in their own right. --woodensuperman 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is nothing that limits the category tree to royalty. Dimadick (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. This has only been recently been created, no other entertainers have categories. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_31#Category:Husbands_of_Elizabeth_Taylor and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_6#Category:Husbands_of_Elizabeth_Taylor. --woodensuperman 10:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Charlie Chaplin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. --woodensuperman 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Clint Eastwood

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Eastwood family exists. --woodensuperman 09:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that categorize a person by anther related person (for example their spouse or parent). These articles were originally categorized with Clint Eastwood, so what you are basically saying is that we can't have these specific categories, but categorizing a person with the category for another person is alright. Inpops (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, people should not be categorised by other people per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:COPSEP. --woodensuperman 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Smooth Network presenters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It seems this category is for presenters of the Smooth Radio stations. However the title is incorrect. Inpops (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Smooth Radio presenters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century African-American sportsmen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. In the 21st century, African Americans predominate in sports. Moreover, most articles do not even mention the subject's ethnicity. We deleted Category:African-American basketball players last year for the same reason. User:Namiba 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this was only created to diffuse the existing male entries at Category:21st-century African-American sportspeople per WP:CATGENDER, equating it to categories created for individual sports is inaccurate, as is suggesting this is some kind of new unsourced categorisation. Crowsus (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should also delete that category as well. Having uncited ethnicity categories is a major BLP issue, no?--User:Namiba 19:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why delete instead of fix? You've not had a great track record of determining BLP for black athletes. SMasonGarrison 12:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support appears to be an outlier given the lack of similar categories for other American ethnicities. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. I agree these is non-defining and not particularly useful. I would extend that to all similar sport-specific categories as well. Rikster2 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century New Zealand women artists

[edit]
Added: Category:Women artists.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:19th-century_New_Zealand_male_artists Traumnovelle (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded rationale female artists is more consistent with the male category, doesn't exclude female artists who are not women (such as children), and is better English: using a proper adjective instead of a noun as an adjective. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics MLB Team Wikipedians Category

[edit]

Please move Category:Wikipedians interested in the Oakland Athletics to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Athletics because the team name has changed. SportsFan007 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht racing biography stubs to Sailing biography stubs

[edit]

Follow-up to this, broaden the scope of these stubs to sailing (Olympic sport) to include windsurfing, kitesurfing, dinghy racing etc. WPs Sailing, Stub sorting and Sports were notified a month ago without any feedback. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist cave temples in Ladakh

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are categories with only one to three articles, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, created before I realized how that section of the guidelines worked.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 5

[edit]

Template:Scombroidei-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It would be much better if this stub type covered the whole order instead of just a polyphyletic subtaxon. And the category should be moved to Category:Scombriformes stubs. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nippon TV

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Official full station name. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CONCACAF Gold Cup stadiums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: More clear examples of WP:PERFCAT. User:Namiba 18:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with a limited theatrical release

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Is the fact that a film had a limited theatrical release a defining characteristic? DonIago (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There were some films released in select theaters. Abhiramakella (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥📱 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, what defines them is that they are Netflix, or Amazon, etc. films and the articles are already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-defining and potentially overbroad. Many films have been given a limited release to make the cutoff for the Academy Awards and have then been given a full re-release at a more profitable time of the year, or after a nomination generates buzz. Some have initially been given a limited release as a publicity stunt. Others have been limited artificially by independent or otherwise poor distribution, or by problematic or niche subject matter. Some films originally under the poor-distribution/problematic/niche umbrella have earned a wide release after unexpectedly good box-office returns or "discovery" by a major distributor (often after a similar film unexpectedly makes loads of money). These factors make it difficult to define which films belong in the category. As pointed out by Marcocapelle, the category's author(s) seem to have only considered films released on streaming platforms, which is a relatively recent phenomenon that's more easily defined but already sufficiently covered by other categories. Carguychris (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: another factor muddying the waters is that most of the world film industry has historically revolved around the United States, and many so-called foreign films produced elsewhere have historically received a "limited" release in the U.S. despite having been widely released in their home countries. This raises a WP:NPOV issue regarding what constitutes "limited", as it's often easy to find American WP:RS sources describing such films as being in limited release, even though this isn't necessarily true—is it limited only in the U.S.? Carguychris (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GMA Network personalities

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Personalities" is redundant with people. There is no reason to have this category which implies to cover "actors and singers" when "people" apply just fine. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥📱 18:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ABS-CBN personalities

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Personalities" is redundant with people. There is no reason to have this category which implies to cover "actors and singers" when "people" apply just fine. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥📱 18:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional hamsters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one article about a fictional hamster (that being Wrecking Ball (Overwatch)). However, Category:Hamsters in popular culture could be easily created out of this category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Websites with far-right material

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The formulation of this category name is problematic. What does it mean to be "with" some kind of material? If a centrist or left-leaning website quotes far-right material to debunk it, is that not a website "with far-right material"? The category description requires that entries in the category be "verified by reliable sources", but does that mean that the sources need to specify that the entries are "with far-right material" rather than being "far-right websites"?
I note that we have no other categories for websites categorized as being "with" some kind of material, and I suspect that there is a reason for this. BD2412 T 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very hesitant about this rename. The point of the current category name is (undoubtedly) that the websites are frequently visited by people with far-right opinions while that does not make them far-right websites per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully agree with you that a category named Websites with far-right material is not worth keeping. Yet a lot of the pages currently categorized in Category:Websites with far-right material do not fit in Category:Neo-Nazi websites or Category:Alt-right websites but would fit in Category:Far-right websites, so my endorsement of renaming is a technical trick to ease categorization, nothing more. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well do they fit Category:Far-right websites? I doubt so, at least for a substantial number of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • «Well do they fit Category:Far-right websites?» => Most of them do fit in my opinion: Category:Alt-right websites, Category:Breitbart News, Category:Neo-Nazi websites, Category:WorldNetDaily, (from B to F) Big League Politics, BitChute, Brasil Paralelo, Counterspin Media, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, Disclose.tv, Document.no, Freestartr, FrontPage Magazine. Bulli Bai case, DC Inside, Mais qui?, Reddit, do not. Bulli Bai case and Mais qui? fit in a potential Category:Far-right in Internet. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The corresponding categories in de.wikipedia.org and fr.wikipedia.org are titled Category:Far-right in Internet so there is room for a broader category. See also wikidata:Q2135509. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Governors of Mexican California

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, consistent with article space, since Mexican California redirects to Alta California. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Soccer Championship

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The capitalization of "Soccer" makes it seem like Canadian Soccer Championship is the competition's proper title, which it isn't. Arguably it should just be Category:Canadian Championship to be an eponomous category, although it appears that that rename discussion was already made and discarded. Either way, "Canadian Championship (soccer)" would make it closer to an eponmous category, while still differentiating it from other sports championships. RedBlueGreen93 06:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, although it seems that others did not in a previous discussion here. RedBlueGreen93 20:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National artists of Thailand

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I previously raised objection to the decapitalisation of the category title at WT:CFD, though the reversion process seems to have fallen through the cracks. Anyway, as I mentioned in that discussion, the National Artist title is an award, and directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural. To compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but "Best Actor winners". Renaming the category as proposed would better reflect the nature of the title, i.e. its being an award, not a job. Paul_012 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the proposed form matches the general preference at CfD to follow the article title, though I personally dislike parenthesis in category titles when natural disambiguation is possible. So I'll also list Category:National Artist of Thailand awardees, Category:National Artist awardees of Thailand, Category:Thai National Artist awardees, and Category:Thailand National Artist awardees as alternative suggestions. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus favors a rename, though no clear consensus on what the new name should be. In particular, thoughts on Josh's comment (which would imply lowercase-a "National artist")?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Reply to relisting comment) I think there's agreement on Category:National Artist (Thailand) awardees. Hey man im josh's comment was in favour of lower-case national artists if the term is in plural, but the original proposal is not affected by this. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose regarding Category:National Artist (Thailand) awardees since it's not an ordinary award (or even an ordinary honorary award), it's an honorary title given by the state (see National Artist or similar honorary titles like People's Artist and Honored Artist/Merited Artist). If we look at the current category names for this kind of title (Category:People's_Artists, Category:Honored Artists, and Category:Merited Artists, which also would be affected by this discussion, I believe), most have the form "... Artists of country" (for many the article title matches that but not for all), a few have the lower-case variant of that ("... artists of country"), and one has the form "Recipients of the title of Merited Artist of country". If we want to avoid the plural, I would support something along the lines of the last form ("Recipients of the title of x", where x can match the article title); "awardees" is very uncommon in general (basically not used atm, see search) and seems like a particularly odd choice for recipients of a title.
    If we want to have something closer to the current naming scheme (i.e. a plural form), I think the question is whether honorary titles fall under "Positions, offices, and occupational titles". I could not find a answer in discussions on that (I have seen some discussion about the (honorary) title of "Fellow", where it was argued that this could be interpreted as a position within a society, but I think that applies to this current discussion not as much), but it seems to me like all the examples in WP:JOBTITLES are very much occupation related (and that this was the intent behind this guideline), which the honors discussed here are clearly not. If we believe that honorary titles fall under WP:JOBTITLES, then arguments based on the specificity of the title would be irrelevant, since that is is not a reason to capitalize it per WP:JOBTITLES. Similarly, the argument that "National Artist" is a proper noun and that this leads to the plural being a proper noun (and capitalized) as well wouldn't work since there seems to be a consensus that such plural forms of titles are, in fact, not proper nouns and always capitalized (see Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 13#Requested move 27 July 2019), and honestly, if "Presidents of the United States" is not considered a proper noun, then "National Artists" definitely isn't either. So, if we decide that WP:JOBTITLES does indeed apply to honorary titles, I think the lower-case plural is a given. If we decide that honorary titles do not fall under "Positions, offices, and occupational titles", then we still have MOS:PEOPLETITLES as a guideline, which doesn't say anything about plurals (although something is implied by an individual's name). I think the proper nouns argument would still lead to lower-case plural, but the consensus and arguments were specifically in reference to WP:JOBTITLES, so who knows. Felida97 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is already too long, but I want to note a more general consideration (and potential argument for a capitalized plural despite MOS:JOBTITLES) that I came across when thinking about this discussion, and that is the fact that categories are obv inherently different from articles in various ways (and have a kind of special/particular function), and it may be debatable to what extent an article guideline like WP:JOBTITLES (or style guidelines, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, that are frequently referenced in style discussions) should apply to categories or category names (I'm not sure whether there is a nice analog equivalent for those). Or are categories perhaps so distinct/special in their structure/purpose that one could argue to have different rules for certain aspects? One aspect where this is already the case is that article titles generally should be singular in form (see WP:SINGULAR), whereas names of set categories are generally plural, which totally makes sense because of the different structure and function compared with articles. But, as I said, this is more general consideration. Felida97 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awardees is just what I came up with off the top of my head, so I'm open to other suggestions. But Category:Recipients of the title of National Artist of Thailand does seem rather unwieldy. RevelationDirect and Hey man im josh, what do you think? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either of those. I acknowledge I could be wrong about "Artists", but it does seem that pluralizing the title would result in MOS:JOBTITLES applying, so whatever is done to get around that I'm fine with. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's true (although in this instance it would be Category:Recipients of the title of National Artist (Thailand) to match the article title, right? [side note: I noticed that some of these titles have the "of country" part in the official title, but the Thailand one does not afaict, so the article title National Artist (Thailand) is not necessarily wrong and matching it was supported by all, I think]). My suggestion is also not that common atm (four cats), but that is because almost all category names for this kind of honor use the plural (here's another similar title: Category:Hero (title); same for Category:Honorary titles of the United Kingdom, Category:Honorary titles of Russia or Category:Honorary titles of the Holy See), and afaics, "Recipients of the title of..." is the most common (and only non-plural) alternative (and "Recipients of ..." seems to be common for other official state honors). Given the implications for quite a few categories and since our current direction here goes so clearly against the overwhelming majority of names, this honorary-titles-JOBTITLES-plural-capitalization issue probably should be discussed under wider participation to settle it (especially since a good portion of those plural names is currently wrong and should be corrected anyway, no matter what the correct form is), right? Felida97 (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Felida97's latest comment (suggesting Category:Recipients of the title of National Artist (Thailand))?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, if fully populated this would largely overlap with Category:People from Courland Governorate and Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire be the parent in a sense of both those categories? Because for navigation it might be helpful to make this a container category. SMasonGarrison 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Nyttend's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to do about this category. There isn't an actual WikiProject Baronage of Scotland, it just exists on the user page of a relatively new editor (see User:Daniel Plumber/sandbox/WikiProject Baronage of Scotland). They are very enthusiastic but I'm not sure about tagging articles for such an ill-formed WikiProject. There has also been some discussion that there is a lot of COI editing going on with these articles but I guess the concern here is whether or not there is justification for this category. I'll also mention that Template:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland is up for a TFD discussion at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be an empty category soon as the template is being deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional mammoths

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 3 out of 4 of the entries in this category are redirects. Only article is of a book series and not of a fictional mammoth character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Roman Catholic bishops by contiguous area of the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Vague and non-defining. This category name sounds more like a container category, but the contents are individual bishops. Mason (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus favors a merge. To which targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in summer camps

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need both categories? I can see a difference between the two, but I doubt that small distinction will actually be followed. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Every film in the about a summer camp cat must be in the setting cat because its impossible to have a film about a summer camp without being set in a summer camp. Setting is a primary defining feature of narrative works like film, so it is an essential category and should not be deleted or merged.
That said most of these articles belong in the setting category tree and not the topic category tree. One of the problems with the topic category tree is it often confuses topic with setting. Most of these films aren't about summer camps but about other things like friendship, growing up as a teenager, and host of the other things. Adams Family Values would be a perfect example of this. That film is about a family in conflict with a gold digging murderess as it primary story line. Parts of the film (and its just a side tangent) just happen to be set in a summer camp and its not "about a summer camp". Likewise The Parent Trap isn't about a summer camp but two twin sisters who re-unite after being separated at birth, and then switch places in an effort to reconnect their parents. Only a small portion of the film is "set" in a summer camp, and most of movie happens in the Boston and California homes of their parents. However, a documentary film about a summer camp would be a film about a summer camp, and a fictional film entirely set in a summer camp could feasibly be considered about a summer camp depending on narrative arc. Topic is much more subjective category whereas setting is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just said in more words what I said in my nomination, that the small distinction isn't something that editors can handle, seeing as the about category is full of films not about summer camps. Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. There is overlap but category trees by topic and setting often do overlap, which is ok. Topic and setting are two different things, but they are both defining aspects of a narrative work that may or may not overlap. I don’t think it hurts to have both, but if we must delete one the topic cat is by far the more ambiguous and therefore less useful category. The setting cat should be kept.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus for any particular action. I will tag Category:Films about summer camps to allow for a reverse merge. Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British male tennis players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm bringing this to CFD because @Crowsus: has requested it. I see no reason why this category should be the non-diffusing parent per WP:DIFFUSE. @Zyxw: made it so in 2020 [7] without any discussion I can find. Mason (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would also ask that whatever outcome is reached here be considered to be applied to other groupings of British sportspeople, particularly Swimmers, Cyclists and Athletes (and obviously the subcategories thereof, where created) which have also had this non-diffusing header added. I have already recently gone through these and 'doubled' them for all articles where I can discern which part of the UK they were from, so if it is agreed that they should be removed from British if the home nation is known, the only remainders in the British parent should be the sparsely-sourced stubs or other unusual circumstances of each person. I did ask somewhere (can't remember where, trying to find it) for an explanation on why that non-diffusing thing had been chosen 9and was it a community consensus, but IIRC it was a project without a lot of interaction and nobody replied. Crowsus (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found my attempt to draw attention to the issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 12#Category:British sportspeople by sport: why non-diffusing? (Jan 2023, ignored entirely)... Crowsus (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think generalizing to the rest is totally reasonable. And I think that no one chimed in advocating for it to be kept is at least some implicit information that no one felt strongly about non-diffusing Mason (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffuse, there is no reason to deviate from the default. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused here. There pretty much is no such thing as English tennis players. They are always referred to as British tennis players, whether professionally or at the Olympics. It would be like removing US tennis players and instead inserting Californian tennis players. And it looks like someone did the same with the Olympics... there are no Scottish Olympic competitors.... they are British. And the category tells us as much: "Players who only ever represented Great Britain as a single entity (for example, in tennis at the Olympic Games) are listed under this category only." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case the English subcategory should be merged to British. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words completely changing your mind, and presumably throwing 343 English male tennis players back into the Sportsmen parent? Doesn't seem useful to me. At least the double category sorts that while reflecting that they are generally known as British within the sport globally. Crowsus (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crowsus: I am not at all changing my mind: the articles should be either in an English/Scottish or a British category but not in both. When Fyunck argues that British is better than English I say to them, fine, in that case English is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the "Players who only ever represented Great Britain as a single entity (for example, in tennis at the Olympic Games) are listed under this category only" was added by @Zyxw: at the same time as the non-diffusing tag, even though they are essentially contradictory: if there is a category for Scottish male players - which existed for 8 years before the changes were added, by the way - then obviously male players from Scotland are going to be added to it as that is a completely valid descriptor for their origin,regardless of a unilateral 'rule' over representation. The double cat is therefore an imperfect but reasonable compromise. Crowsus (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My biggest concern would be that editors will see "Scottish male tennis player" and remove the name from "British male tennis player" using diffusion... and that would be WRONG. They are first and foremost British tennis players both in professional tennis and the Olympics. They register as such with the governing bodies of tennis, are part of professional national teams, and as part of Olympics teams. They are not referred to as English, Scottish, or Welsh in tennis (other sports like FIFA World Cup are different). If you want to double-up and categorize these bios as both Scottish and British, or Californian and US, there will be lots of duplicates in both categories, but I can live with it. But removal of British and US categories in player bios I am 100% against. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't object to the home nations being upmerged so they are not on the same level as the primary British tree and can be included without being a straight duplicate: eg both Jamie Murray and Andy Murray would show as in British male tennis players, Scottish sportsmen and Scottish tennis players [ungendered but regardless of representation - there are other categories covering that]. Scottish male tennis players etc therefore redundant, so redirect to British male tennis players. Crowsus (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the challenge is that "British male tennis player" is describing the nationality, not describing who they play for. If I'm understanding correctly, that your concern is that in these cases British is means that they played for Britain. There's also a tree for who folks represent in sport, which is different. SMasonGarrison 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that's kind of strange. I notice that @Crowsus: just added Jamie Murray to the category "Scottish Olympic medallists." Scotland is not a nation and has no Olympic medallists. Great Britain does have Olympic medallists. Does this mean I can start adding "Californian Olympic medalists?" Or even "Angeleno Olympic medalists?" I find this very confusing. If anything it should be "Olympic medallists from Scotland", but even that seems out of place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, check again, i added him to Scottish Olympic competitors which I didn't create and is obviously underpopulated, although it has existed since 2011. Feel free to nominate that category (and/or the medalists one) separately, but it has little to do with this discussion. Crowsus (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:British female tennis players was not tagged; I will do so. I will note that this is not a discussion about the subcategories; a merge discussion can be initiated separately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worms (obsolete taxon)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the obsolete taxon is "Vermes", not "Worms". jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article and the relevant history is located in Worm.Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Worms and populate with the other taxa listed in the disambiguation category currently there. Otherwise rename per nom and purge content not about Vermes. This category is a weird hybrid of several things, and we either needs to embrace that, or give it a clear focus. It's possible (I haven't checked) that after the purge there won't be enough content to warrant a category and it should be deleted wholly - no objection to that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sacramental theologians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: unhelpful for navigation with only 1 person in each category. SMasonGarrison 02:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the first category contains someone who was not occupied as a theologian. The second category results in a POV issue, it is about an Eastern Orthodox concept while the theologian in the category lived long before the split between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Santiago, Chile

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Santiago but this is a very common name for places in Latin America. About half of the subcategories include Chile and half do not. Personally, I'd rather use Santiago, Chile for all but more than anything, I'd like uniformity. Thoughts? User:Namiba 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sportspeople categories are like this one, Category:Boxers from Santiago. I know, since I created it from entries in Category:Sportspeople from Santiago. There are lots of Londons, but the category for is Category:London.Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the categories are a mix and include both the shorter and longer names.--User:Namiba 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 00:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And rename the child categories. JuniperChill's argument doesn't really make sense here because there are so many Santiago SMasonGarrison 02:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

[edit]

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1255390992"