Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

[edit]
  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
    1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

[edit]

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_October_20


October 20

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Surnames of Malagasy origin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to be duplicates as they contain many of the same articles. I don't care which one is Merged into which but I think we only need one category for Malagasy surnames. They also aren't very well populated but that's another matter. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piedmontese-speaking people by occupation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings and structures in France

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT & WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
The official heritage register in France is the Monument historique and all that this category contains is the Category:Monuments historiques of France subcategory so there's no navigational benefit to this empty parent category. And, if a Wikipedia editor added any articles directly to this category, it wouldn't be encyclopedic since it's so subjective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: We previously deleted similar subjective "historic" building categories here, here, here and here. Also, I moved two loose articles (1, 2) to the Mh subcat prior to this nomination.- RevelationDirect (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem here is that Category:Monuments historiques of France must be subcategorized under the parent category Category:Historic buildings and structures, where the naming convention established by sibling categories for other countries requires the form "Historic buildings and structures in [Country]". The rule here isn't that things have to be categorized according to the "official name" of the register that conferred historic status; it's that the tree has to be internally consistent within itself, so that the location of any related category can be rationally predicted by any user regardless of their depth or lack of inside knowledge of the "official name" of anything. So we can't just file Category:Monuments historiques of France directly in the parent category, because it's out of phase with all of its siblings, but we can't just exclude it from a parent category that it needs to be in either, so this category must exist so that France has a category named the same way as its other-country siblings are named.
    There's absolutely nothing subjective about them, either, as the categories were intended for buildings that have been designated as historic by external authorities, meaning that there's no subjectivity involved since the official registers of historic buildings tell us what does or doesn't belong in the categories. They're not categories for just any random building that any random Wikipedian wants to throw in them on the basis of a personal opinion that they're historic, they're categories for buildings that have been officially designated and listed as historic by the relevant authority, and thus have clear and straightforward and entirely unsubjective inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 8 other countries still have a sibling category we haven't deleted yet because they often are used for any random building that any random Wikipedian wants to throw in them, if they're used at all. In contrast, the less subjective Category:Heritage registers by country tree has 55 countries in it including Category:Heritage registers in France. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Heritage registers by country is for things that are heritage registers, not things that are buildings on heritage registers, so that and this are not duplicating each other at all. And if the categories are being used wrong, then the appropriate solution is to clean up the bad entries, not to delete the categories altogether, because the categories do serve a valid and neutral and objective purpose quite independently of any misuse that may occur. Any category can have wrong stuff added to it at any time, so if "could be used wrongly" were a reason to delete categories in and of itself then we wouldn't have any categories at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We actually agree that the heritage register cats are conceptually different; my point wast that in practice they contain the same building subcategories. (As for the rest, I appreciate your differing perspectives!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories under Category:Transgender by country were recently renamed to Category:Transgender topics by country following this CfD. However, the top-level parent wasn't included in that nomination. Suggest renaming accordingly for consistency and to avoid the awkward adjective category title. Paul_012 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 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]

Category:Scindia dynasty of Gwalior

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. PadFoot (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali(an) people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the country Somalia did not exist yet in these centuries and it is unclear whether Somalian would include or exclude current Somaliland. So I think it is better to re-parent these categories, i.e. move them from the tree of Category:Somalian people to the tree of Category:Ethnic Somali people. For example in the 13th-century category there is someone in the Maldives who was probably an ethnic Somali. Fwiw, many articles use "Somali" rather than "Somalian" too. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Oppose. It may be a follow-up discussion, but that discussion didn't conclude that we should rename everything from a nationality( Somalian) to an ethnicity (Somali). Logistically, this rename would be incompatible with the templates its currently using. Mason (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Logos by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with parent Category:Wikipedia images of logos and to avoid confusion with Category:Logos which contains articles rather than images. There are a few articles in these trees (not many), they should be moved to Category:Logos. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynasties of the Rajputs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Simpler, more concise and more common construct. PadFoot (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museum of the Year (UK) recipients

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature of any of the subjects. Not a particularly notable award. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: you say its not a particularly notable award, are there notability requirements for categories? The article itself Museum of the Year has 48 references. I'm not very familiar with the rules around categories but this seems like enough. John Cummings (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carrathool

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and an article about a disused bridge, better categorised in parent category. AusLondonder (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dumaresq, New South Wales

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and an article about a defunct train station. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is already categorised in Category:Towns in New England (New South Wales), a region largely overlapping with the Northern Tablelands. AusLondonder (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction set around Omicron Persei

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Every item in this category is a Futurama episode; it is also the only media which is frequently set there listed on the article Omicron Persei; this category may be too narrow or small. Xeroctic (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQ centenarians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kamyenyets

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Zardab

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Sulam

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Athens, West Virginia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Anawalt, West Virginia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Lemington, Vermont

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Gazipaşa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Thompson, North Dakota

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kensington, New Hampshire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lostwave

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Lostwave" is basically an ill-defined currently trendy Internet term that refers to music of unknown origins, which can also refer to completely lost works such as Ready 'n' Steady, or songs that are only known based on fragments, which seems to be the most common as listed on the page. While it is definitely "real" insofar its a term people use and there is something of a community around it, the fact it isn't clearly defined to begin with, and almost completely overlaps with "Lost musical works", "Rediscovered musical works" or "Works of unknown authorship" doesn't really make it suitable as a category. Iostn (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Distinct phenomenon from lost musical works, which are pieces and recordings of music which secondary sources can attest existed at one point, but no longer do. Support renaming to Music of unknown origin, which unlike the trendy "Lostwave" is a time-tested phrase in academia. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the rename proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement over the present name. Mason (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus to keep or merge the category, but I am not seeing objection to renaming if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FL-Class cricket articles of Mid-importance

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: According to WikiProject Cricket's assessment scheme, All lists (including FLs) are assessed as Low-Importance only. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same for,
Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio: You only put the CFD tag on one of the categories. You are supposed to tag every category that is being considered for deletion. Also, I don't think we typically delete categories like these. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All have now been tagged. Thoughts on the merits of the proposal / is it the case that we don't typically delete categories like these?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: These categories are automatically populated by the WikiProject template, so deleting them via CfD won't work; it'll only create red category links on talk pages. If the WikiProject standard is as you say, the incorrect assessments should be corrected first. However, I'm not seeing anything to that effect at the linked assessment page. It only says lists are excluded from Top and High class. The mention of cricket-related lists under Low class is only as an example, not a prescription. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noting that four of these categories are empty. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women local politicans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Change to Fooian/Xian per parents. --MikutoH talk! 04:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the comments by Mason and Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:59, 12 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, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of veganism

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. Web-julio (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining of these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, because OPINIONCAT isn't really applicable here. They are not characterized simply because of a non-defining like or dislike, but because of a position that they hold. In that regard, there is no functional difference between someone who recommends veganism/vegetarianism, versus someone who recommends against it, so long as there is sufficient sourcing that the person has made significant commentary to that effect. If there are pages about people for whom it is a minor aspect of their views, so as not to be defining, that should be addressed by cleanup of the categories, rather than by deleting the categories entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Tryptofish's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:03, 12 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) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British music logos

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Limited scope (contains just one entry and one subcat) with likely limited expansion. Exists without an established Category:Music logos tree that also seems too limited to exist. Upmerge to Category:British logos. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:39, 5 October 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) 23:29, 12 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) 01:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If articles and image files need to be separated then sure, go ahead. I don't know that they actually do, but if Marcocapelle insists then I'm willing to trust them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"