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 00:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 13,307 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).

Additional "X events in Y" categories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Additional "Year in X" categories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Additional "Year in X" categories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Additional "X events in Y" categories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Opposed requests

[edit]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]

Moved to full discussion

[edit]
Extended content
These are very special / unique individuals that competed as an Olympian, and were capable of continuing to compete later as a Masters athlete. Many Olympians have attempted to continue as a Masters but were unable (due to past injuries or other reasons). Recommend: to not change.
[Side note: Not part of this conversation: Occasionally the individual has been a both at the same time.] PlainDonut (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

January 30

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

January 29

[edit]

Category:Recreation by period

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer and not exactly the most defining intersection between these topics. Manually merge since many of the subcategories are already in subcategories of that tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

eponymous Massachusetts categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I can't believe these got opposed at speedy, but here we are... All the nominated categories contain a single eponymous article of the same name and were recently created by a single user. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion

Category:Dorrien and Smith-Dorrien family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a family of Dorriens, Smiths, Smith-Dorriens, and Dorrien-Smiths. We should pick one. The most are Smith-Dorriens, with four. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No particular objection - seems like a more sensible option. Not only were there Smith-Dorriens and Dorrien-Smiths, but also Smith-Dorrien-Smiths. Cnbrb (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHA. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magical superheroes / supervillains

[edit]

To start off with, just as in professional wrestling, a hero can do a face turn to a villain/"heel" (and vice-versa). So splitting these is subjective WP:OR.

Besides that, all of the category members are comics characters, which should already be in Category:Comics characters who use magic or one of its subcats. Most of these will end up in the DC or Marvel subcats. - jc37 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television shows about the Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCASSOC Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajasthan Rashtriya Loktantrik Party politician stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, a far too small stub category. The two articles should be added to Category:Rajasthan politician stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rashtriya Loktantrik Party politicians from Rajasthan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category because Rashtriya Loktantrik Party category already exists and this party is only based in Rajasthan and not other states so we do not specifically need to mention Rajasthan in category. TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ashbyia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ashbyia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dasyornithidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dasyornithidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irenidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Irenidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chaetopidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Chaetopidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atrichornithidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Atrichornithidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nyctibiidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nyctibiidae is the sole member of the monotypic order Nyctibiiformes. Normally I'd propose merging the higher taxon, but in this case I think Category:Nyctibiiformes should be kept for consistency with the rest of Category:Birds by classification. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crex

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Crex is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psophiidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Psophiidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 28

[edit]

Category:Otidiphabinae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Otidiphabinae is a monogeneric subfamily. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Claravis (bird)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Claravis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noddies (tern)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are overlapping – noddy is the common name for members of the genus Anous. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stiltia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Stiltia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chionidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Chionidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ibidorhynchidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ibidorhynchidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haematopodidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Haematopodidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upupidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upupidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bucorvidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Bucorvidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhinoplax

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Rhinoplax is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional alchemists

[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_10#Category:Fictional_witches_and_wizards.

Just because someone using magic used some material components, editors label them "alchemists". This is WP:OR.

To quote: Alchemy in art and entertainment: "In twentieth and twenty-first century examples, alchemists are generally presented in a more romantic or mystic light, and often little distinction is made between alchemy, magic, and witchcraft. Alchemy has become a common theme in fantasy fiction."

And many of the characters already are in other subcats of the target (WP:OVERLAPCAT). - jc37 20:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Egypt by populated place

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT User:Namiba 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional summoners

[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_10#Category:Fictional_witches_and_wizards. - jc37 19:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hemiprocnidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Hemiprocnidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums arranged by Spencer Dryden

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It's usually jazz or orchestral albums that are heavily reliant on arrangements, and the one article in this category only mentions Dryden as responsible for horn arrangements in the credits section. It seems that that wouldn't be any more defining to the album than Dryden being the drummer on the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palaeospheniscinae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Palaeospheniscinae is a monogeneric subfamily. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien book characters

[edit]

Per other cats in Category:Characters in fantasy novel series of the 20th century and Category:Characters in British novels of the 20th century, etc.

And to match Category:The Lord of the Rings characters.

This could probably have been a speedy rename, but I thought I'd add them here, in case there were any concerns. - jc37 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Willy Wonka

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly a case of WP:OVERLAPCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charmed (TV series) witches

[edit]

Per WP:OVERLAPCAT - Most of the category members are already members of the parent. - jc37 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional magic characters in comics

[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_10#Category:Fictional_witches_and_wizards. And as per Magician (fantasy), these terms are used disparately and subjectively by authors - in some cases the only similarity between the characters is the name.

Many of the first 2 categories' entries are merely female characters who use magic, that editors then decide to categorise as "witches". Similar thing with the wizard cats and male magic-users. It's WP:OR.

And it's also WP:OVERLAPCAT, as many are also in the targets. - jc37 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michael Stipe

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON, this can be handled by the "Works by" tree as only one other article to consider. --woodensuperman 15:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peter Buck

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON, this can be handled by the "Works by" tree as only one other article to consider. --woodensuperman 15:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CKY

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Individuals should be in a separate category per WP:COPSEP, would suggest it should match the article CKY crew. Alternatively, they could be purged, as this could be a WP:PERFCAT issue. --woodensuperman 14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22nd-century decades

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, two redundant category layers, diffusion by decade is only useful for the lower "works set in decade" level. Apart from one article (in the 2130s) there is no need to merge, the content is already in other 22nd-century subcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is too far in the future to gather enough articles — I checked the eclipses as well, and the four articles are all from different decades. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International families needing locational disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We've renamed all US family categories which need locational disambiguation to put the location in parentheses. These international categories should match. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odontobatrachidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Odontobatrachidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:July 2026 sports events in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too soon to diffuse by country & month. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames from ornamental names

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These surnames, i.e., such as Rosenkrantz or Goldfarb are ornamental surnames themselves, not "derived" from anything but their fancy meaning. --Altenmann >talk 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another "things named after other things". We can't do 1:1 relationships in categories (unless we start doing a myriad of 2-member cats - which would presumably be overcat). - jc37 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanskrit Aesthetics

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: So that the capitalization can comply with Wikipedia capitalization conventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclesto (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 27

[edit]

Category:Africa Cup of Nations balls

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Just one list article. Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of beaches in Puerto Rico

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Just 2 list articles in this category. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National highways

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME that means different things in each of the different countries with member subcategories. I added Category:Highways by country to those that weren't already included via a parent, so it's now redundant. Paul_012 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music generated games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Raised by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_10#Category:Video_games_with_custom_soundtrack_support due to its unclear title. The long description is mostly WP:OR, and defines the topic as video games that can read CD inputs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music-generated games are games in which the gameplay is generatively determined in a meaningful way by musical input. This is accomplished, in music-generated video games, by associating in-game elements such as landscape or enemy attack formations with elements from the musical input via waveform analysis algorithms.

Musical input typically consists of a standard CD in Red Book audio format. With musical input in this format, the game software will load into the console's RAM and allow the removal of the game disc such that any musical CD of the player's choosing may be inserted and accessed during the game. This allows for essentially limitless gameplay variability and is intended to enhance replay value.

Other music-generated video games do not allow the player to select his own input, but instead use pre-determined musical input generatively. Such games allow the designers to employ any musical format of their choosing thereby enabling maximal compression and thus maximal pre-determined song library. Generative portions of such games typically derive from music visualization algorithms.

Although music-generated games are typically classified as music games, there is no requirement that a music-generated game must fall under this genre or even that the player must hear the music serving to determine gameplay. Furthermore, since gameplay determination is required, games which allow nothing more than a custom soundtrack do not fit the definition of a music-generated game.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some of the members should be or already are included under Category:Rhythm games, but not all of them fall under the category. Generating gameplay content based on music input should probably be a defining aspect of these games, but other than a Steam Curator list[1] I'm only seeing Reddit and other forum posts that discuss them as a grouping. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BBC Television shows

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: While the service is called "BBC Television", this naming convention is contra much of the other subcats, including things like Category:BBC television specials and Category:BBC television talk shows. Imo it makes sense to have this version be lowercase as well, as the container category contains television shows as the most-specific description over "shows", which happens to be under BBC Television. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Resolved missing person cases in Utah

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: this just isolates cases, making it harder to navigate SMasonGarrison 13:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on AHI-3000's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Africa Cup of Nations stadiums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE and recent precedents. User:Namiba 21:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crones

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It is quite often impossible to split the hair, even the category statute admits this.
After that, merge Category:Hags into it. --Altenmann >talk 21:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pedostibes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Pedostibes is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is borderline WP:PERFCAT as it is, splitting by season definitely makes this more of a WP:PERFCAT issue. If we have to break this down by show, we should not be splitting by season also, whichever specific season they may or may not have appeared in is not WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice that a lot of other drag TV shows have been subjected to the same inappropriate split just a couple of weeks ago, we do not do this for other reality TV shows, no need to do this here. Once this is resolved, we need to apply the same logic to other shows in the Category:Reality drag competition contestants tree. --woodensuperman 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as creator. A few points. It is quite common for references about the queens to not just refer to them as "RuPauls's Drag Race contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache", but rather "RuPauls's Drag Race Season 11 contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache". They represent diffusing* categories to a category with over 200 Queens in it and which allows for these subcats to become part of the cat for each season. The situation with RPDR is that unlike (say) "Who wants to be a millionaire?" or Survivor is that almost all queens in the shows, *as a result of the show* now meet notability criteria. (I honestly don't think we have any other tv show with that number of people who become notable *due* to the show.)Silky Nutmeg Ganache the remainder of her career is specifically identified by the characteristic of her category, as opposed to say the contestants on Celebrity Apprentice.*A few queens due to having to exit early were invited back for the next season.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still no justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, as we are doing here (although, personally I don't see why, when a lot of these people are famous for more than the one TV series these days, and I'd ideally like to upmerge all of these to Category:Reality drag competition contestants), but splitting by season is a step too far as per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic. Splitting this further actually hinders navigation, as you would need to know which season someone was a contestant in order to navigate between the queens. Peversely, it would actually make more sense to break down the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}} by season, rather than the categories, as you would be able to view all the contestants at once. Also, 200 entries in a category isn't catastrophic, when you consider Category:21st-century American male actors has over 6,000 entries. --woodensuperman 14:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While a few are now famous for one or more additional shows, as far as I can tell more than 80% went from not being notable on the day they were cast to being notable after the show was broadcast. And, as I said, since the references refer to them specifically by season, that fulfills " A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". If you would like to suggest that the template be redone, I'd suggest *either* the Wikiproject or the template talk page, the Wikiproject is a bit more active. And I think the reason that it hasn't been done is the small season/season overlap mentioned above.Naraht (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The season is not a defining characteristic. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these categories are helpful and reasonable given the number of entries in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants and the presence of categories for individual seasons (Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 7, for example). Most contestants and episodes of the series are notable so some organization helps here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire

[edit]
Speedy Cfd discussion
Nominator's rationale: There are, as far as I can see, only two dames due to Canada renouncing titles long ago. So no need to do so by order. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle from speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serving Brothers of the Order of St John

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current title only covers males and not females. In addition, this rank has relatively recently (about 2017, it would appear) been renamed from Serving Brother/Sister to Member. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rangpur

[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: Speedy delete per G5 SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category created today in good faith by new editor. The name Rangpur is ambiguous, so the existing category's title is correct, since all articles currently in the new category appear to be for the city in Bangladesh. The redirected category may need to be disambiguated for Category:Rangpur District and Category:Rangpur Division. Wikishovel (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and disambiguate per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 27 January 2025 (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:Temples (LDS Church) by location

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-level containing only two container subcategories and a list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballot measures

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ballot measure has been a redirect to referendum since 2021. Merge and keep as a redirect per WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly fine that the US category is called "ballot measures", per WP:ENGVAR. But the nominated category is not a US category, it is a global category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This decision would impact a large number of articles that pertain to many legal systems around the world. I would suggest an approach more like (1) doing some research on the use of the terms in different places, (2) consider several naming schemes and list the pros and cons, (3) put together a proposal, and (4) post to a more widely trafficked venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you're open to such an approach, I am willing to help out, and we could do some preliminary work in user: or wikiproject: space. I think it would be valuable to come up with a solution that is compatible with the language used in various jurisdictions. But if not, I'm going to oppose any simple change that puts hundreds or thousands of articles into categories that are in direct contradiction to the formal status of the propositions they concern. - Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misread my reply. I am totally fine to change the name of any countries' category from referendum to ballot measure if that is the term they use in that country. But this category is not for individual countries, it is a global category. And we shouldn't have a fork at global level because of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course a fork at the global level is a problem. As I said, I agree that this is an issue worth resolving; but it needs to be done with a more holistic view. My disagreement is with the present proposal, not with the notion that there's a problem in need of a solution, and not merely with the US-specific category tree. So I don't think there is any misunderstanding. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peteforsyth: if you agree with the fact that there is a problem but you keep keep opposing the proposal then please come up with an alternative proposal. Personally I don't see any alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal is above, I'm surprised you don't acknowledge it. I am not confident I have a broad enough command of the various issues to come up with a comprehensive solution myself, nor do I think you do. The path I suggest is the one I've seen work time and again to move past thorny issues on the wiki. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a proposal, it is just delaying the only possible solution for unclear reasons. You do not provide any argument why this category should not be merged, the only thing you say is that your knowledge about the topic falls short. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_19#Virtual_reality_->_Extended_reality:

Please renominate "Virtual reality pioneers" separately. The term is generally only used in retrospect and I don't think it's controversial to say VR is still developing in a way that it's hard for us to say who is and isn't a pioneer from the present vantage point.
— User:Axem Titanium 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (keep). All the nominated categories can be kept without any deletions or renamings instead. 67.209.130.111 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on North Korea

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the people in this category aren't described as experts. How are we defining who is an expert? There are a few politicians who I would not describe as experts in here (and neither does their article), but the only defining categorization here is those who study it as their discipline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on terrorism

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Experts is a weird thing to categorize by as well as a POV judgement. Who are we defining as an expert? Does Osama Bin Laden count as an "expert on terrorism"? There are a few politicians in here who made some legislation on terrorism, but I dispute that this makes them experts, and they are not described as such. The subcat of "terrorism theorists" should be merged into this, as it is basically doing the same thing. No, what these people are actually notable for is being scholars of the topic. All other categories like this (except two, which should also be changed) either use academics or scholars. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Scholars is the best option. --Fadesga (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 26

[edit]

Category:Oxynotidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Oxynotidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pristiophoridae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Pristiophoridae is the only family in the monotypic order Pristiophoriformes. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anacanthobatis

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Anacanthobatis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heteropneustidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Heteropneustidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austroglanididae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Austroglanididae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astroblepidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Astroblepidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years of the 19th century in the Kingdom of Hanover

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and redirect. Kingdom of Hanover only existed 1814–1866. Redirect as {{R from template-generated category}}. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parazacco

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Parazacco is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2030s in Africa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another underpopulated category for the future. The two articles contained within Category:2030 in Moroccan sport are already in the subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2027 in Africa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are those in Category:2027 Africa Cup of Nations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acanthorhodeus

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Acanthorhodeus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All of these monotypic taxa CfD's should be bundled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chromobotia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Chromobotia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gymnocharacinus

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Gymnocharacinus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spratellomorpha

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Spratellomorpha is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stolothrissa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Stolothrissa is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Omosudidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Omosudidae is a monogeneric family, and its genus Omosudis is also monotypic. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Typhlichthys

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Typhlichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Balistapus

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Balistapus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syngnathoides

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Syngnathoides is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamprichthys

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Lamprichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection. Only 3 articles were not in the Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States tree and I verified via PetScan that they either a) never competed in the Olympics (due to 1980 boycott or WWII) or b) competed under another nationality (dual nationality). Opposed rename at speedy. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
 American masters athletes that competed in the Summer Olympics

@Trackinfo, what do you think about including a link in the sidebar of Category:American masters athletes using the {{PetScan}} template like this (see right)? The issue with the current title is that the 'M' in Masters and the 'A' in Athletes shouldn't be capitalized because we use sentence case for category titles, see WP:NCCPT. Also, a definite article "the" is missing after the word "in".
The benefit of just including a link to the PetScan is that it will be automatically populated, and it still serves the navigation aid purpose so it will be easier to maintain. Greatly appreciate your work here. --Habst (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are very special / unique individuals that competed as an Olympian, and were capable of continuing to compete later as a Masters athlete. Many Olympians have attempted to continue as a Masters but were unable (due to past injuries or other reasons). Recommend: to not change.[Side note: Not part of this conversation: Occasionally the individual has been a both at the same time.] PlainDonut (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, what do you think about putting this category intersection link at the category page, so that the list of U.S. masters Olympians is still there and will be automatically updated in the future by a computer, instead of having to manually maintain it at this category? --Habst (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some of the USA Masters Athletes (Track and Field) competed at the Winter Olympics, hence the term
"Olympics."
Side Note: Some Masters Athletes (Track and Field) were USA Olympic Coaches. PlainDonut (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, I updated the PetScan link to include everyone from Category:Olympic competitors, i.e. both the Summer and Winter Olympics. If they were Olympic coaches only and not competitors, they don't belong in this category because it says, "competed" in the Olympics.
Now that the PetScan link includes all Summer and Winter competitors who are U.S. masters athletes, what do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we keep category or sub-category: "American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics"
Side note: Willie Gault is one example that competed in Masters, Summer Olys, and was an alternate for the Winter Olys. Lolo Jones and Lauryn Williams competed in Summer and Winter Olys. Willie Davenport competed in Masters, Summer and Winter Olys. There might be more. PlainDonut (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PlainDonut, if we have a PetScan link which is the exact same as the category, then why should we keep the category? The PetScan link should include Jones, Williams, and Davenport already. The problem is that if we have this category for one nationality, we would also need to make it for every other nationality and nobody has done that yet (and we would have to rename it because "Athlete" shouldn't be capitalized). I greatly appreciate your work compiling this, but now PetScan can make the same list so I think it's not needed any more. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not so much to gloss up the appearance within the category, which would be a single edit kind of move. It would be across all current 130 and growing members of this list, which would necessarily also contain Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States and Category:American masters athletes. If one were a sub-category of another in either direction, editors are encouraged to remove the duplicate category. But the double duplication is what makes this category unique. We could end up with 130 articles chaotically changing categories which would be difficult to track and effectively make this and possibly other categories incomplete. This does not serve the purpose of categories in helping users locate similar content. As @Plain Donut commented elsewhere, each is a special accomplishment, not easily achieved in either direction.
Sub comment: It is difficult to participate in discussions like this when every capital letter causes the cursor to jump back to the beginning of the comment box. Every sentence needs to be re-constructed with multiple copy/paste edits. On my multiple computers using Safari, this has been an ongoing problem I have remarked about for years.Trackinfo (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo, re: your computer issue, can you try using another browser like Firefox? Or if not, try using the mobile version of Wikipedia here to reply instead?
I don't understand how merging would make those 130 articles incomplete. It would be a straightforward change, and we could verify that all 130 are in Category:American masters athletes and you could add that category to your watchlist to see if any are added or removed. We are not losing any data either, because the full list of U.S. masters Olympians will always be available at this category intersection no matter what.
In general, I don't see the reason to separately manually maintain something that is both an outlier (there is no equivalent Category:Candadian Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics or for any other country) and can already be maintained with 100% accuracy by a computer program (PetScan) above.
Also, what do you think about the casing and grammar issues with the category name? Again, I greatly respect your work here so hoping we can come to a consensus. --Habst (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: The intersection between Olympian and Masters athlete is non-defining. They are two separate unrelated traits. Being a track and field athlete at the Olympics is defining and being a masters athlete is defining, but the intersection of those two is not defining. The content could be converted to a list either by expanding List of masters athletes or on a new page where more context can be given. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If the category is not merged/deleted, should it be renamed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scaturiginichthys

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Scaturiginichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oxudercinae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are overlapping – mudskipper is the common name for members of the subfamily Oxudercinae. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ratsirakia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ratsirakia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coryphaena

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Coryphaena is the sole member of the monogeneric family Coryphaenidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batrachoidiformes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Batrachoidiformes is a monotypic order. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not monotypic to Percomorpha. I suggest Category:Batrachoididae is a better merge. ? UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebei Tiangong F.C. players

[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: speedy rename.. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I mistakenly created the category on its current name. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as WP:C2E. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (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:Colluricinclidae

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Colluricinclidae is a monogeneric family containing only Colluricincla, so normally I'd propose merging it into its parent Category:Passeriformes. However, according to A multi-gene phylogeny reveals novel relationships for aberrant genera of Australo-Papuan core Corvoidea and polyphyly of the Pachycephalidae and Psophodidae (Aves: Passeriformes)  and Historical biogeography of an Indo-Pacific passerine bird family (Pachycephalidae): different colonization patterns in the Indonesian and Melanesian archipelagos  (and as described in our article on shrikethrushes), Colluricincla has been moved into the family Pachycephalidae, making Colluricinclidae a junior subjective synonym of Pachycephalidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 25

[edit]

Category:Integral thought

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To my (admittedly bare) understanding of this remnant of this extremely confusing walled garden (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters, which is what happened to the Integral thought article after moves) this is the same thing as Integral theory, except has an OR aspect of conflating it with several of its inspirations. The subcategory is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Contents that are directly in the nominated category should be checked for accuracy. This is a downmerge, so parents will need to be updated as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Setians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The title and description is confusing, but every item listed is affiliated with or is the Temple of Set. Non-Temple of Set Set affiliations are not included. Category should thus be renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladesh protests (2022–2024)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main article has been deleted for reasons that also negate the purpose of this category. Charles Essie (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the PROD rationale explains:

claims there was a continuous stream of protests in the region from 2022-2024 which is not supported by any WP:RS. Fails WP:V and is complete WP:OR. 2024 July Revolution (Bangladesh) is unrelated to this. Not a single source says there were any such protests in 2022 and 2023, and in mid 2024 a completely unrepated protest took place that has veen merged here to make an imaginary 2 years long protest!
— User:Dilbaggg 18 January 2025

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient deaths

[edit]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, until 700 BC these are mostly single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination.
@Aidan721, LaundryPizza03, and XFalcon2004x: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macedonian Senators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category of unclear utility. The Assembly of North Macedonia is a unicameral body, not a house-and-senate body, according to its article, so there is no Senate of North Macedonia for people to be members of -- instead, there's a usage note here which states that the category is for "Macedonian citizens representing Macedonian Diaspora in Official Government bodies in the North Macedonia, such as National Parliament", which isn't what the word "senator" means, and even the one person who has been filed here is described by his article as an ambassador, not as a "senator", and is already appropriately categorized as a Macedonian diplomat.
So if a category were warranted for whatever that usage note is supposed to mean, it would have to be renamed quite differently than this -- but people can't be categorized as "senators" if they aren't members of any "senate". Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, since anybody can introduce any complete bullshit into it at any time — it's third party sourcing that keeps us on the rails, not "other Wikipedia articles". Show a third party media source independently verifying that North Macedonia has a senate, and that Jordan Plevnes is a member of it, or drop the stick. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See for instance WMC Senator for USA (Arizona) writer Jason Miko [3] (in Macedonian: "СМК го наградува Џејсон Мико со највисокото светско семакедонско признание, почесната титула Македонски Сенатор"). 87.116.178.196 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disease outbreaks in locations of Overseas France

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This whole tree contains only "COVID-19 pandemic in Foo" articles, all of which are already in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Overseas France. If other health disaster / disease outbreak articles get created for these locations, then the deleted categories can be revisisted. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Taha'a

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 biography article. Merge per WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women biomechanists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should repurpose this category to include all biomechanists, not, just women. I don't know if the intersection is defining, but I do know taht we should start this tree with the non-intersecting parent SMasonGarrison 16:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Omiya Ardija players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Mismatch between category name and head article title RB Omiya Ardija, which has caused a big red "Error! Omiya Ardija is a redirect, the category name should match the main article name!!!" message to appear at the top of the category.
Because of a process issue, however, I'm taking this to a full CFR discussion rather than just listing it for speedy: the article was arbitrarily moved to its new title after Christmas by an editor without following the page renaming process, and that editor has since been persistently trying to move articles into the redlinked target category without following the proper renaming process to get the category moved to that name -- the "RB" category has recurred on the redlinked category report at least five or six times in the past month, with two of those times occurring after they were advised to cut it out and follow proper process. (Accordingly, I've temporarily created it as a categoryredirect so that it stops showing up as a redlink, though obviously the redirect and the main category name can just be switched if this goes through.)
So the question is, was the page move warranted and this category should then be moved to match it, or was the page move improper and it should be moved back to its old name instead of moving this category? Either way, the redlinked-category crap needs to stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black LGBTQ people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:People of African descent, and the norm from recent cfds is of African descent SMasonGarrison 15:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cults

[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_17#Category:Cults, the lack of a clear definition of cults makes it difficult to classify articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitantly oppose. My rationale is most media works can present themself as being “about” something even if we do not define it. This is the case for films and books. If it says it is about cults it is about cults. We are in no business to define one, but they can. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with you. One example: The Empty Man (film) seems to be clearly and obviously about what is presented as a cult, not a new religious movement (which, for certain works of fiction, would pass for a huge and borderline comedic euphemism/extrapolation if such a merge happened, I suppose).That is the choice of the artists and the sources confirm it. Films about cults include 5 subcats and 223 pages so far and it is a notable subgenre of horror cinema. On a case by case approach some can be moved from one category to the other (and maybe have both categories, if sources/content allow to do so, for example The Wicker Man, maybe), so that I am opposed to merge. I note that the Category:Cults was manually merged as subjective but, precisely, works of art are subjective creations. So MAYBE for documentary films that reasoning applies (and even then, it shouldn't be for us to decide) but not for fiction (and PARAKANYAA had indicated that point in their rationale: "there are some valid subcategories of this (works about cults, anti-cult movement)"). Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 said it better than I could, thanks PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above comments. Cults do not necessarily equal new religious movements, and new religious movements do not necessarily equal cults. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This set of categories is not at all similar to the previous two CFDs you are piggybacking on, and nom's rationale is flimsy. Along the lines of what PARAK wrote, works can be about cults in general without such a category being derogatory to the article subject. Whitewashing Wikipedia of the word 'cult' is neither desirable nor appropriate. WP:NOTCENSORED. BTW, I notified each of the Wikiprojects mentioned for these 4 categories.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it is a real-world issue about if some organization is a cult or not, why not just rename these categories to say "fictional cults"? I feel like it's weird to project "new religious movement" onto some silly horror movie's cult that threatens the protagonist. Works about real-world cults/new religious movements can have their own category. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Cults is not a subset of new religious movements. The few who believe this to be the case are a minority of sociologists who define their field as the study of new religions. Scholars in other fields do not regard them as a subset, and have criticised those sociologists, with some justice, for taking significant sums of money from groups (such as Aum Shinrikyo – after they committed murderous atrocities) and then acting as their paid apologist. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not the minority. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the minority. Most sociologists have better things to do. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2025 (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:New Acropolis

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only two articles and they already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are plenty of notable New Acropolis topics. We happen to not have articles on any of them. When we do, recreate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:2027 in Asia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are one article each at the lowest level, and some empty categories that will be speedy deleted per C1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2027 in China

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only article is a building that hasn't started construction yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nintendo Switch 2

[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: procedural close, category already deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated for deletion here one week ago. Besides that, WP:TOOSOON. GSK (talk • edits) 05:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was improperly deleted by JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 if recreated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:George19980825_reported_by_User:GSK_(Result:_). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 25 January 2025 (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:Wrestlemania participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants Mann Mann (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale On further reflection, this seems to be the best course of action. I still very much do not appreciate this however. Disappointed. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This too. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Rumble participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:February 1861 events in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category tree for a single country and with 3 articles total. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Months from 2027 onward

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too soon, nest of categories containing only a handful of articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 24

[edit]

Set theorists by nationality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The top-level category is not currently too big. If it gets too big, it would be better to divide by field of study. Nationality is not a very relevant property of mathematicians, and some of the most tedious and unproductive discussions on mathematician bios have been over which nationality gets to claim them. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Side note: These cats are recent creations, just a day or two ago. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Many of the bigger subcategories of Category:Mathematicians by field are subdivided by nationality, and this can be parallel to a subcategrization by subfield. According to WP:PETSCAN, there are 112 items in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wish they weren't, to be honest. Do we have to repeat the mistake here just because it's made in other fields? (Also, I'm particularly leery of this one because of Georg Cantor and Kurt Gödel, both of whom have been subject to these distasteful nationalistic claim-warrings.)
Alternatively, where would be a good venue to discuss whether this sort of subcat is a good idea in general? --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my specific concern is mathematics, so if it's to be a WikiProject I would think it would be WT:WPM, but it's true that the natural sciences probably have similar dynamics (not much relevance to the work; lots of contributors with ambiguous or complicated nationality). Maybe it's a Village Pump issue? Anyway I'll notify WP Math (neutrally) about the instant discussion; maybe someone will have ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Not a defining intersection. All of these picky little intersection subcategories make it very difficult to categorize articles because you have to remember or look up every time which intersections exist and then spread what should be a single defining characteristic (set theorists) over all the different intersections (especially as academics tend to have multiple nationalities: where they are originally from, where they were educated, where they have held long-term jobs...) Merge the others too as/when they are nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rough consensus that these categories should not exist, but should we then split by century?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to this CfD., and can be done independently of it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in this category redirect to the same page. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: This is also the case for the following 15 siblings:
Do you want to nominate those as well (I believe those are all the subcats of Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city that have this exact issue)? (As was the case with the already nominated category, for some of those siblings, the eponymous article would need to be added to some cats before nominating the cat for deletion.) Felida97 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual merge? Expand the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on refugees

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I stumbled on this category when I stumbled on the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert), and I saw a tangent about this category. While it is true that many people on Wikipedia are widely considered as experts in their subject, there are only three categories named "Experts on...": those are for terrorism, North Korea and refugees. Other categories on specialism would be like Category:Psephologists (not "experts on elections") or Category:Seismologists (not "experts on earthquakes") I looked at the articles in this category, and there is a mixture of activists and academics. Both of these can be problematic when we have a category on expertise. If the category was named "pro-refugee activists", that seems better to me, because it is about their position, rather than expertise. If a pro-refugee activist is not academically qualified, I feel that opens the way to having anti-refugee activists also having to be in the category of "experts", as both will be known for activism on the subject, and both will have no academic credentials to prove it. When it comes to academics, obviously they do not pin their colours to the mast quite like activists, but there are also highly qualified people who are known for writings that criticise migration and asylum. Those would fall under the banner of "experts on refugees", and would probably lead to edit wars on exactly who qualifies as an expert. TLDR: Category mixes activists and academics. Should they be separated? Category is based on expertise, which is subjective. In the case of unqualified activists, the category could also be applied to anti-refugee activists, as the category only mentions unquantifiable "expertise", not position. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that creating a category does not need discussion, but merging a category does.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or rename pro-refugee activists. Calling someone an expert is POV, and even worse almost no one in this category is even described that way. It's an arbitrary assortment of people Campaigning on something does not make you an expert, and I'm not sure if there is a relevant academic field. In any case, only one or two of the people here would fit in an academic category. Our two other "Experts on" categories are misnamed and have also been nominated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab Nationalist Movement breakaway groups

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a more accurate description as many of these groups emerged after the dissolution of the Arab Nationalist Movement. Charles Essie (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With what and why? Charles Essie (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Charles Essie's most recent proposal? I am not seeing Marcocapelle's comments as an objection to renaming if kept, though he clearly prefers a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: What's the purpose of this? What "maintenance" is needed for these specifically? It looks as if every category can be restated as a "Wikipedia category named after", e.g. "Wikipedia categories named after countries", "Wikipedia categories named after years", essentially duplicating the category system. But why? If we want a category grouping all mass media franchises, it should be Category:Mass media franchises, not this. Fram (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If not kept, merge to Category:Eponymous categories? Should we handle this in a wider nomination, or should we start with removing this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli settlers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only 1-3 articles in these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Nazi propaganda

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know what is supposed to go in here vs say, the parent category neo-Nazi publications, and the category does not make it clear. The Category:Nazi propaganda, which this is clearly modeled off of, contains wartime propaganda, which makes sense. Given how neo-Nazis operate all of their publications can be understood as propaganda so I am unsure as what the difference between these two categories is supposed to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to isolate actresses of European decent from other expatriate accesses SMasonGarrison 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films; thoughts on Marcocapelle's points would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's updated proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elements of fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The new name I'm moving to has previously been deleted. However this category only is for things that are fictional and there are also 5 subcategories that already use "Fictional elements" instead, so why use this name instead? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the IUPAP Early Career Scientist Prize

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Minor early-career award, not lead-worthy, not defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct WikiProjects

[edit]

Propose deleting the following categories:

Various "participants" categories for defunct WikiProjects. Delete per prior precedent. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories tagged and authors notified where still active. It was funny that it turns out one of these was created by myself - I have no memory of doing so, and will let it go through the seven-day discussion with the others rather than G7-ing. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What happened to the WikiProjects? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
They were marked as defunct (in Category:Defunct WikiProjects). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an editor who spent a fair amount of time years ago assessing the status of all existing WikiProjects, the status of a WikiProject can easily change over time. If these are deleted, it shouldn't be a "forever" type of deletion in case editors want to revive the project. It also might be wise to post a notice about this discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Project I was working on that's on this list, the "Category" just relates to having a little box on my user page. That seems fun but also silly and pointless. Let them all die. Salamurai (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Marino work group

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liechtenstein work group

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nest of ambiguously-named categories containing a grand total of two pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about economies by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, I was planning to propose renaming from "works" to "books" per actual category content, but the subcategories are already directly in Category:Economics books and one of them is nominated below, so this category does not add much value at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about the economy of the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of the category when some more articles are available. The only article is about economic history, hence the history targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests

[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: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests to article List of guests on The Joe Rogan Experience
Nominator's rationale: The category as applied fails WP:CATDEF in most cases. Someone appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience is not defined by that appearance; it's just one of many talk shows that they attended one time. The category should be listified. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually came here because I felt the category should be proposed for deletion. In the realm of over-categorization, this category violates the Performers_by_production characteristic. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per @Kingturtle's rationale above. Rift (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2025 (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:Anime and Cartoon television

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: What even is this category supposed to be? Do I even have to explain why it's so bad? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - judging by the pages in the category it appears that it is supposed to be for television channels that broadcast anime and cartoons, but that's not obvious at all by the current name. I do think that such a category could be useful though. I don't have any ideas for a new name, so I'm open to ideas, but it should make it clear what the scope is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free conventions

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. The only child category is Free festivals SMasonGarrison 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hazardous air pollutants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming analogous to Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention. Other renamings were considered (albeit not advocated for: "I can't think of a way to rename the category to make it make sense. (Regulated Hazardous air pollutants)?? (USEPA Hazardous air pollutants)??") on the talk page all the way back in 2007. Preimage (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @A876 (original talk page poster) in case you want to weigh in here. Preimage (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Not seeing opposition to the rename if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. too US-centric. a very small number of editors might get very excited about initiating new categories for their own countries of residence and/or interest, and then the community would be impeded by dozens of very new and very fragmented categories for this. Sm8900 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 23

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia oversighters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Special:Users, which is automatically maintained and is up to date at all times. The users involved were not asked nor did they consent to being placed in this category, and some of the pages that have been included do not fit into the category (e.g., User:Deskana/Userboxes/oversight since). Deskana has not been an oversighter for many years, and their name should not be included in this category, even peripherally. The category is not maintained, and it is poor use of editor time to maintain a redundant category. Risker (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This category was created before the Single User Login (SUL) conversion, and may have made sense at the time, but has now been supplanted by Special:Users. Risker (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the 2 nominations. Courtesy ping to Risker. - jc37 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. It contains editors who are not oversighters (e.g. Deskana) and doesn't contain some editors who are (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is filled by at least top icons and likely also user boxes. Errors of incorrect inclusion should be corrected instead of used as examples IMO.... Izno (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If these are deleted per redundancy with Special:Users, I think that there should be a follow-up nom (or add to this one) of most of the cats in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level, except maybe Stewards and the global ones, since they are off-wiki. - jc37 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[5] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete We give wide latitude to users to decide how they wish to appear in categories. That extends even to user groups, and largely always has. We have complementary categories for every user right, and I'm really struggling to see what the harm is in an incomplete list. (And have already ceded that these should be removed from the pages where they are no longer appropriate.)
    This seems to be a WP:CLN type problem to me. Different people have different ways of navigating, and we have different ways of organizing information with each type. And on top of that, different scripts which add supplementary information in different locations. The categories are helpful in this anyway because they already expose the more complete list, and give people who are familiar with categories a place to go when they're looking at a specific user page. Or coming from the other direction, down from "Wikipedia user groups", from which they may have navigated elsewise. Izno (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[6] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference here. "This user likes baseball" is reliant only on the user's preference. "This user is checkuser" can change without the user being involved (due to removal due to inactivity or whatever). So in the first case, if they go inactive, the userbox is still applicable. In the second, it's not.
    And yes: "We should not miscategorize Wikipedians" has long been foundation to take into consideration at CfD. (Similar to, we should never miscategorize articles about people.) We should never merge Wikipedians into an inapplicable category, for example, merely to make the name "better" per a cfd discussion. So in those cases, we delete the cat and allow for Wikipedians to decide for themselves if they should belong to a category of a new name. We should not be deciding for them.
    Anyway, in this case, it's simple: categories are about navigation. Having these is a disservice to those looking for a CU or OS editor. Add a link (with an explanation) to Special:Users, at the top of the parent cat, and call it good. - jc37 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the idea of having these categories are a leftover relic of times gone by. And, as you note, wiki software has removed the need for them. - jc37 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    |nocat= is routinely provided for user boxes, I see no reason it can't be provided by top icons as well. Izno (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These templates (and {{top icon}}) have had it for more than a decade. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For any that don't, there's always {{Suppress categories|...}}. SilverLocust 💬 03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The presence of a category here is inherently misleading. And besides that there's little reason besides curiosity to browse the list of checkusers or oversighters - if you want the attention of a checkuser use {{Checkuser needed}}, if you want something oversighted follow one of the approved processes at Wikipedia:Oversight. In neither case is it helpful to broadcast. Pppery (alt) (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Izno; keep and fix any errant uses of the categories. The potential for misuse of a category is not a reason for deletion except in extreme cases (e.g. when it is most frequently used incorrectly), and this is not one of them. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally closed as "keep" (see Special:Permalink/1267661114), but I reverted my closure in response to concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJPMaster (she/they) 20:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why can't these categories (and similar ones) be automatically updated by a bot? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose they could be, but do we really need a category populated by a bot, to duplicate what you can get by clicking on Special:Users? I ask because, at CFD, don't we tend to try to reduce duplication in the category system? - jc37 06:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the category links from user pages may be useful and the hatnotes take care of the accuracy issues. —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the link is only on a user page of an actual oversighter, how would having a link to a category of oversighters be helpful? Besides, as these are populated by userboxes and other templates, they too could have a link to Special:Users, so there's no reason there for keeping, either... - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User categories are independent of userboxes and other templates. Userboxes caused one of Wikipedia's worst civil wars almost 20 years ago and some people still avoid them. Why not allow people to show their user group via category if they want to be found that way? —Kusma (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because categories are not "bottom-of-the-page" tags. If an editor wants to note something about themself, they are (generally) free to do so by editing their user page and note that there. Userboxes are merely one of many ways in which one can do so. - jc37 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm trying to understand the rationale for keeping these categories. "Keep - because it happens to already be there" ? - If these categories were deleted, would they be missed? Not really, no. So does this all boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, or even WP:ILIKEIT? - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "it's useful" and "I like it" to be perfectly acceptable arguments in discussions not related to encyclopaedic content. Note that WP:ITSUSEFUL actually explicitly states "There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangential query - why "oversighters"? People given oversight are usually called overseers. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness I think that stems on how an oversight is a failure to notice something, and to oversee is really to supervise. It's better to coin a neologism than imply some administrators are more privileged than others (which totally isn't true). JayCubby 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the categories be populated by a userbox instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beginnings AD 1-1500

[edit]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge/add articles manually, redundant category layer, up to 1500 it consists for the larger part of one or two subcategories only. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, most of the tiem there are only births and establishments categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note that this CFD involves almost 1500 categories and is too large to be closed by XFDCloser, our editing tool that we use to close deletion discussions. I think this will have to be handled manually (as mentioned in the nomination?) or it might be possible to program a bot to handle this nomination. But this is not going to be a standard CFD closure. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1850s in the Bahamas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge isolated group of categories. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americanized surnames

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this page is anglicisation of names. "American" isn't a language and many of these surnames are used in other countries than the US, including Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. ★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Someone should check the articles too. Bell (surname) and Byers (surname) seem to be plain English-language surnames. And it is not clear if Blomquist really deviates from an original Swedish form. But better have it checked by a native English speaker. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - For the reasons illustrated above. This just looks like WP:OR (editors making a subjective determination for inclusion). This just cries out for explanations and references. Neither of which can be done with categories, per WP:BEFORECAT/WP:CLN. - jc37 17:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As an aside, these fall under what I call "before and after" categories. (This was that, but now, it's this.) The clearest example of which is: renaming of people, companies, countries, etc. An article is one entry in a category. And can't show an individual relationship with another article (unless we started making innumerable 2-article categories). We should just establish that such categories are disallowed and are better as lists. Well... We do in WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category, numbers 2 and 7 point to this, for example. But apparently we need to mke this clearer, I guess. - jc37 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British families needing geographical disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We've recently renamed any US state subcategories of Category:American families by state or territory that need disambiguation by state to put the state in parentheses at the end. These are the only British categories that fall outside this rubric (there are plenty with "England" or other places in parentheses). Seems like following that US precedent would be good. A couple of these have articles that use this format, such as Eliot family (South England) and Lloyd family (Birmingham). Mike Selinker (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sinclair Broadcast Group

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Corporate name; "Sinclair Broadcast Group" is just a subsidiary Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olivetti S.p.A.

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: like the main article Olivetti InterComMan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add a disambiguator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's no need to diffuse the parent category to this degree. SMasonGarrison 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I disagree. Government ministers are a very notable role within Liechtenstein and should have their own century categories. There is also enough people with this role (page created or not) to warrant it's existence. Deputy heads of government, while technically a government minister, is also an entirely different role. TheBritinator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say anything about notability? I said that there's no need to diffuse this category by century. We don't keep categories around just because the pages might exist. SMasonGarrison 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. There is more than enough people to warrant it being split by century. It being split this way also makes for much simpler navigation. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I based my decision making for these categories similar to that of Category:20th-century vice presidents of the United States, for example. Why is this acceptable while mine is not? They serve the same purpose. TheBritinator (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a helpful argument. Why does there need to be 3 layers of politicians intersecting by century? SMasonGarrison 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the argument I was making. I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale, so I am asking for clarification. TheBritinator (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale" what level of rational do you need here? You are making a comparison to a much larger more developed category that covers more than 2 centuries. I've asked you to explain why we need this intersection, and thus far you've only pointed to other categories needing it. Not this one. SMasonGarrison 01:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good amount of these people are only notable for one role. As such, the intersection is ideal to make the navigation flow well with Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians, for example. Otherwise it will make it so they are not as easily found. My comparison is valid as it does in fact serve the same role, is that enough of an explanation? TheBritinator (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2025 (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) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
The category creator makes a fair argument and there's enough persons to populate the categories. I don't find the evidence to support merging the categories convincingly outweighs the argument to keep as is. Nayyn (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinctions since 1500

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the year 1500 is an arbitrary cutoff. If there is no opposition I will add the subcategories to the nomination for renaming from "since 1500" to "Holocene". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1500 may be arbitrary, but it is the date used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to track extinct species (they do not include species known to have gone extinct prior to 1500). 1500 is used because it's a round number near the start of the Age of Discovery, when (European) naturalists would have been able document species before they went extinct, and it represents a date after which human influence played a major role in all subsequent extinctions (there are extinctions prior to that date where humans played a major role, and there are likely some extinction after that date where.
I would not be strongly opposed to renaming the category to Category:Recent extinctions, which follows List of recently extinct fishes, List of recently extinct mammals and several other sublists in the entries at Lists of extinct species. However, I do feel that would just obfuscate the fact that 1500 is exactly the date chosen for an extinction to be considered "recent".
Contemporaneous documentation is what distinguishes prehistory from history. There is a whole category tree for Category:Prehistoric life; it is under Category:Extinct taxa, and categorization between the prehistoric/extinct categories is pretty messy (many prehistoric organisms are in extinct categories). But I think "recent extinctions in which humans played a major role" is something that is worthy of categories as is "prehistoric extinctions that occurred before humans evolved" (while recognizing that there is a grey area where humans may have played a role in some prehistoric extinctions once they had evolved (but there are also many extinctions during the Holocene where humans didn't play a major role)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Plantdrew's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Aidan721's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

[edit]

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

For older closed and unclosed discussions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1267842097#Current_discussions"