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_19


October 19

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:People from Chataignier, Louisiana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Athens, Louisiana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Woodburn, Kentucky

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Article contains a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Walnut, Illinois

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Eastford, Connecticut

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private schools Northern Beaches Sydney

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category created by a private school, duplicates and doesn't improve on the existing categorisation scheme at Category:Private schools in Sydney and subcategories such as Category:Private secondary schools in Sydney. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Loxley, Alabama

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Indian monarchies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songwriter unknown

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We name categories as noun phrases. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle kingdoms of India

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is an out-of-process rename. The correct procedure is to nominate Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a duplicate category under a weird name. The target is itself nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Empires and kingdoms of foo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water polo teams in Czechoslovakia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's only one page in here Mason (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czechoslovak water polo people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd-century Vietnamese women

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. isolated category Mason (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online-only games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining trait, mostly because it not executed properly (can you imagine all browser games that require WIFI in existence already?) it also heavily conflicts Category:Multiplayer online games which mostly contains games only having a multiplayer online mode QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge and leave as a redirect? That would reduce the chances of this being created again. Mason (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Over the Hedge video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Entirely contained within Category:Over the Hedge. Either we have two categories with three entries or one with six. We do not need the entries in this category to be contained within both. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? If so, merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and purge Category:Over the Hedge of redundant entries. It helpfully diffuses a lot of categories, as Marcocapelle listed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on QuietHere's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summer camps in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category #1: Single-entry category that conflicts with its parent category. Category #2: Redundant category layer that only has a single subcategory. Category #3: Category containing only a single article. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Summer camps in fiction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 3 per Zxcvbnm (I also added more entries to the category). Support the other two. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am having seafood tonight. I didn't tag the category. Apologies. I will tag Category:Summer camps in fiction, for real this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy directors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: While we're talking about directors versus actors, I feel the same principles as those outlined in WP:PERFCAT, and which resulted in the deletion of multiple "comedy actors" categories[1] may apply here. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose American comedy film directors & British comedy film directors, which diffuse American film directors & British film directors, respectively.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these need to go, then the parent Category:Comedy film directors (which you haven't tagged as part of this) also needs to go. I'm not wedded to the need for it, but there's absolutely no argument to be had that the parent is fine and only the subcategories are a problem: if it's fine, then subcategories for countries with a large enough number of entries are automatically fair game under it, and there can be absolutely no serious argument that only the subcategories are a problem if the parent isn't. There additionally can't be any serious argument that the US and the UK should get subcategories but Canada shouldn't, either — national subcategories aren't applied on any basis more refined or subjective than "has enough entries to support one", so there can't be a serious argument that American and British directors should get subcategories while Canadian ones shouldn't. So either we need to delete the parent category as well, or they all have to stay. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I don't see any suggestion here that I might have simply overlooked the existence of some categories that should be included here. You're welcome to add those in if you feel they should be part of the conversation. Please assume good faith. Do you have an argument other than, "Why are some categories included but related categories missing?" DonIago (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the non-inclusion of directly related categories that are subject to the same issues as the included categories is a relevant and germane point in a CFD discussion. There's simply no reason why these should all be deleted at the same time as the parent Category:Comedy film directors being kept — if the parent is acceptable, then national subcategories for countries with a large-enough number of entries for them are inherently acceptable as well, and if the national subcategories aren't warranted then the parent category isn't warranted either — and any person in any of these categories could simply be readded to the parent category at will by any editor at any time, which would inevitably be followed by these categories getting recreated because the parent category had become large enough to need diffusion into subcategories again (which is the reason why these even exist in the first place: because the parent category existed and needed diffusion). So my point stands, and I will brook no further clapback about it — it's not my job to add related categories to this discussion, it's your job to either add the related category or explain why you think it's different. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How very collaborative of you. I'll add the additional categories shortly. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:PERFCAT is about specific shows in which subjects participate. That is quite different than genre, which we are discussing here. Frankly I think diffusion by genre is more relevant than by location (which is also being done in this tree, at least in the US). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm not sure I see the practical difference, in this case, regarding whether we're talking about categorizing actors by genre versus categorizing directors by genre? I realize categories are generally inclusive rather than exclusive (i.e. just because a director directed comedies and is categorized as such doesn't mean they didn't also direct in other film genres), but the same could be said about the actor categories as well. TL;DR why would "actors by genre" be bad but "directors by genre" not be bad? You say that PERFCAT is about specific shows, but in the CfD that I linked to the consensus appears to have been that genre does constitute a type of performance. I'm also, as I was with the prior CfD, concerned that we risk opening the door to creating multiple additional "Director by genre"-style categories. Is it really a defining characteristic in most cases (I'm genuinely asking here; my instinct is that most directors have directed films from various genres, but maybe I'm wrong)? ETA: I do see that we do have "Film directors by genre"...I'm going to keep the scope of this limited rather than make it all-inclusive at this time, as a test case. DonIago (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are now discussing all categories. Thoughts on the merits of the proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 11 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) 01:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A newly created category that is a violation of the last paragraph of WP:CATLGBT, as well as inevitably leading to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY violations.

CATLGBT states, Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Community consensus is clearly against such categories. The existence of this category is an invitation for people to use it to claim as many historical figures as 'maybe homosexual' as possible. It will be a magnet for OR, undue and fringe. A category that's very basis is that something about it's members is disputed cannot be defining. Golikom (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the distinction between historical figures and BLP at least makes OP's critique problematic and the policy worth rethinking. However, I still have rather significant reservations about these categories as formulated at present—they seem overbroad and non-defining to a degree I feel is untenable. Remsense ‥ 论 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this category, I understand the present complaints, and I have been careful to only apply this category to articles which discuss historical interpretations of a subject's sexuality to some considerable length. I think any article with a well-cited subsection or even separate article discussing theories surrounding a subject's sexuality would be worth considering in this category, but I fully understand how the category in it's current design and application could easily be overapplied and misappropriated. I don't believe the solution is deletion, rather it should be stricter enforcement of some standards to define terms like "ambiguous" and "disputed" and how those are separate from "fringe theories." I don't think the LGBT issue should apply here since, like you said, the category does not apply to BLP articles. However, the rule and it's current wording may need to be reassessed to be more specific. It's also worth considering that Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity barely survived a deletion request for similar reasons. Rylee Amelia (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. But you're not the only person who will use the category. This category is going to be a mess to maintain. Mason (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted so should Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. The rationale behind keeping/deleting both are the same. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That category doesn't specify if one is gay/lesbian or bisexual, or another sexuality. Also, currently only the notable cases are in it, many of which "suspected" or "closeted" don't apply because most of them publicly lived this way without such words being coined. But I could argue that some articles within it overlap with Category:Sexuality of individuals. Web-julio (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: doesn't the term ambiguous sexuality have another meaning? At least "sexually ambiguous" technically meant bisexual/asexual, androgynous/gnc/n-b, or intersex in the past. I think we can use synonyms, such as questionable, or dubious. Web-julio (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is a borderline defining characteristic. A list may be better than a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The distinction between historical figures and BLP is relevant only to the first paragraph of WP:CATLGBT. Anyway, the last paragraph says this:

Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Why is this not applicable? Why shouldn't I just speedily delete? Why is this discussion going on anyway, and why am I even in it? Bruce leverett (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French troubadours

[edit]
Category:12th-century French troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from France
Category:13th-century French troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from France
Category:14th-century French troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from France
Category:Spanish troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Spain
Category:12th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:13th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:14th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:Italian troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Italy
Category:12th-century Italian troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Italy
Category:13th-century Italian troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Italy
Nominator's rationale: The troubadours wrote in Occitan, not French (or Spanish or Italian). They are defined by the language they used. The current category names are confusing. The equivalent of a troubadour writing in French is a trouvère. The problem is the ambiguity of the terms "French", "Spanish" and "Italian". It is absolutely non-obvious that they are non-linguistic terms in cases like this where they modify a literary term like "troubadour". Srnec (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think that its non-obvious that these are nationalities. The norm for FOOian occupation is nationality, not language. I think that it would be better to create a language tree. French-language troubadours etc. or Category:12th-century French-language troubadours or something to that effect. And, frankly, I'd rather not have to rewrite the brand new {{Troubadours by nationality and century category header}} Mason (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no French-language troubadours. Srnec (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a troubadour wrote in Occitan, so obviously these must be nationality categories, there is no ambiguity about that. One might argue that it is a trivial intersection but a rename does not solve that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criminals from Fort Lauderdale, Florida

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. There's no need to diffuse by city. I'm also ok with deletion. Mason (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"