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_November_5


November 5

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

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]

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]

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 [1] 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"