Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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

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

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

How to use this page

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

Special notes

[edit]

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

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_October_12


October 12

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Medieval German LGBTQ people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Moving this category out of the ordinal-century format broke its tranclusion of {{LGBTQ people by nationality and century category header}}. The code of the underlying template is quite complex and inflexible, and I doubt this error could be fixed without radical alterations. I don't believe it desirable to undertake that, especially when it is unclear to me how renaming the category actually addressed the original concern that this category is unhelpful for navigation. Pinging previous discussion's participants HouseBlaster, Bearcat, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The transclusion problem was very easily solved by untranscluding the "broken" header template, and simply filing the category directly in appropriate parent categories instead of doing that via a transcluded header template. That's not a radical solution at all, as it's an entirely normal way of including categories in parent categories — we can use header templates instead of directly transcluded categories where they're useful and fit the circumstances, but there's no rule that we must always use header templates instead of directly transcluded categories, and no rule that a category is inherently invalid just because its parentage doesn't suit a header template. Note also the existence of siblings for Category:Medieval French LGBTQ people and Category:Medieval Italian LGBTQ people, and of a parent Category:Medieval LGBTQ people, all of which suggest that this is both an acceptable and expected category. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. The whole point of the category header is that its only supposed to be used on a very specific kind of category. Thanks Bearcat for making the fix. Mason (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(LGBT identity) fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nominated for speedyrename by Fayenatic london, contested by me and agreed by Raladic, I'm opening CfD reccommended by Marcocapelle. I suggest these changes, I also nominated gay and lesbian categories in case this discussion decides something else in the other direction. Web-julio (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-LGBTQ Pentecostal activists in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only two biographies. Upmerge to Category:Anti-LGBTQ evangelical Christian activists in the United States and Category:Anti-LGBTQ Pentecostal activists. Web-julio (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volleyball players from Izmir

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All Elite Wrestling personnel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This should not be a category because AEW roster is not permanent. Also, both List of All Elite Wrestling personnel and Template:All Elite Wrestling cover the current roster. Mann Mann (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upper class culture in Maryland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly consists of various localities and neighbourhoods. Not clear how that constitutes "upper class culture". AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian scholars of constitutional law

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one page in this category which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For isonomy, I'm bringing these for discussion based in this one, feel free to merge the discussions.

Reasons: all of these only contain from two to four concrete articles plus a list, and some of them contain redirects. Web-julio (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a very bold move out of complete nowhere given that the vast bulk of these categories are perfectly valid navigational tools. The Sword and Shield category in particular contains five articles, while the bulk of the others contain around four or so articles, which are sizeable numbers when collected as a group. Merging all of these sub-categories back to the main category would clutter said category with twenty-three additional articles, and when the total Pokémon species category is covering nearly sixty articles, all of which have valid ways of better organizing them, a merge back would be detrimental for both navigational and practical purposes and be overall unwieldy for covering this subject effectively. I feel a merge would be unwise, and support keeping the bulk of these split.
As an aside, I did mean to discuss the Ruby and Sapphire and Sun and Moon categories when it wasn't midnight in my time zone, but given that this is being brought to the forefront now, I'll bring up my gripes: Both of these categories I feel definitely have room for expansion, but do not have enough articles to justify a split for the time being, in my mind. I wished to discuss this with other editors who I was aware had projects that would fall under these categories in order to resolve this matter further, but this discussion has thrown a wrench in that. Additinally, with Ruby and Sapphire in particular, I did also wish to discuss that I'm admittedly unsure if Regi (Pokémon) should be included within the category, and not just the redirects, given the overarching group was introduced in those games, which could potentially allow for a better justification of RS's sub-category. For the time being I am unable to discuss this as effectively with the categories being suddenly brought to deletion, but I would appreciate the nominator's insight on this, and my other points, as a whole, without a volley of deletion discussions being brought in as a retort. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I was the one who created Ruby and Sapphire and Sun and Moon categories, so I admit that I thought these would be fine, but since you brought the other one for debate, maybe these would also be against policies or what CfD participants think of. So I'm open to comments. And they can be recreated, but where's the line and what would be the criteria for such inclusion/category creation next time?
Because, 5 isn't even a big number overall for general categories. And WP:SMALLCAT says [...] will never have more than a few members, [...], which is not the case, they will eventually be bigger. Web-julio (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:SMALLCAT was deprecated in 2023. (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have always considered 4, occasionally 3, to be the minimum number of articles for a category to be useful. Many categories exist with four articles. These Pokémon categories are useful enough to stay, while the Gen 6 one is not because there are fewer articles. If more Gen 6 Pokémon get articles, we can bring it back. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one item that has an article. The main Pokémon species category is not overly cluttered, and thus this sub-category is not necessary and better off deleted for the time being. Should more X and Y Pokémon get articles, I am unopposed to future recreation, but for the time being it is not necessary and has no immediate use in the near future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the time of nomination, this only contained Klefki. It now contains the generation VI list, Klefki, and a large number of redirects. My same argument still applies here; two subjects are not enough for a subcategory when the main category is not suffering from clutter as-is, and is overall unnecessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it while I was populating. Anyways, you created Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Gold and Silver, which only contains three articles and the list. The same happens with Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Scarlet and Violet by QuicoleJR and Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Sword and Shield by Cukie Gherkin (recently, redirects were put in this one). Based on these, I also created Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire and Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Sun and Moon, in which each one contains only two articles plus list and three/two redirects. So, all of these are debatable, and I'm sure many people here on CfD would vote them all of these for upmerge. Web-julio (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against this category being deleted is that other categories should also be deleted? That's a fairly bizarre argument. In any case, the other categories, while fringe, do provide some navigational utility given four articles would be better off sub-categorized compared to two. Including all of those groups of four and above in the main category would be unwieldy; they're better off organized for the sake of cleanliness and readability. Two articles is nowhere near enough to provide potential category organization issues, and the plethora of redirects are not proper articles, especially when many of them are redirecting to topics often discussed only in brief in the parent article.
While the RS and SM categories may be iffy in a similar vein, this discussion is pertaining strictly to the XY category, and per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is not a point we need to worry about for this discussion. I'm admittedly still considering the former two and wish to discuss them further outside of the scope of a CfD as well. For now though, I feel as though this sub-cat still isn't serving a valid navigational or practical benefit, and would likely need at least a few more fully fledged articles before a sub-cat like this would be beneficial for navigational or practical purposes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERCATSEXIST says: an appeal to "Other similar category schemes don't – and shouldn't – exist" may be an appropriate argument for arguing for deletion of a category.. Web-julio (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you missed the point in commenting about other categories, because I didn't mention Red and Blue, for example, I indeed assessed the current state of the others, which is precarious as well. Web-julio (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Regardless of any other categories that may exist, 2 articles is still too few for a useful category in my eyes. Let us leave any other potential categories to a different discussion (like the one currently above, for instance). (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. X and Y have a rather limited pool and even among people working on these articles it feels like there's very unlikely to be any articles spun out unlike the other games. While I understand the need to subcategorize, even projects like WP:SE don't have a subcategory for every Final Fantasy title, as some of them just don't have enough content (case in point, the Final Fantasy V category was only remade her very recently, after the list was recreated). No prejudice if this situation changes at a later time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only two articles. I also object to calling all of the Mega Evolutions Gen 6 Pokémon, since they are just temporary transformations, and we wouldn't consider G-Max Pokémon to be a separate species. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:SpaceX astronauts

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Prior to September 2024, all astronauts listed in Category:SpaceX astronauts had simply flown on a SpaceX capsule launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Now, with the completion of the recent private spaceflight mission Polaris Dawn, two SpaceX employees—Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon—have been astronauts (while employed by SpaceX) on this recent commercial spaceflight. It would be confusing to categorize the two of them as merely the sense of astronauts who have flown on SpaceX equipment, as they are also SpaceX employees, and are categorized in Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. (more emplyees are planned to fly on future spaceflights). N2e (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to tag Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. Thoughts on zxcvbnm's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British patrolwomen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge these intersections doesn't meet the criteria for defining under WP:EGRS. One note: For Women Merseyside Police officers Either dual upmerge under egrs or broaden to Merseyside Police officers. Mason (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Necrothesp's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to know more about how the intersection between Women Police officers and the met is defining. Just because they're both important on their own doesn't mean that the intersection is. What does @Necrothesp think about repurpsong Category:Women Merseyside Police officers to Merseyside Police officers? Mason (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mason's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Thoughts on the above? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist attractions in Salem

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: IS empty. The one entry was not relevant, so was deleted Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Somali people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed for speedy.C2C: parent is Somalian people by century, but @Marcocapelle: makes good points that "Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. " Mason (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit problematic because there is also Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. On top of that it is unclear whether Somalian would include or exclude current Somaliland. So I think it is better to re-parent these categories, move them from the Somalian to the Ethnic Somali tree. Also rename the 13th to 19th century categories to "Somali". For example in the 13th century category there is someone in the Maldives who was probably an ethnic Somali. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is superfluous. If you're a member, you're a knight, and vice versa. M.O.X (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Daniel the Monk's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solent_University (and sub-categories)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The university has changed its name and the alumni category link on the wikipedia page has been incorrectly updated, so is currently going to a blank category page Mystery Cat (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean a Blank Category page? Mason (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I mean a category page which hasn't been created yet - they changed the name in the link without checking if that category existed. It's 'see also' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Solent_University#Notable_alumni Mystery Cat (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of these were tagged; I will do so now. I will note that on Wikipedia, Example page and Example_page are equivalent (just like Example page and example page are equivalent).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NCT Wish albums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Two redirects which are articles already in Category:NCT Wish songs. Information provided in the song articles do not further elaborate on the single albums to justify both albums and songs categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait some discussion needs to happen elsewhere as to whether the two articles should be reclassified as "single albums" rather than just "single" - I believe for consistency sake they should probably be migrated to the “single album” format which would be valid for this category.
Either way, the artist has an EP being released in about 5 hours that will inevitably have an article created in the extremely near future (within hours) that will belong in this category which could change the direction of this deletion discussion before the nomination can run its course. No point in going through a week worth of deletion discussion if by the end of it the nomination rationale that all the votes are based upon will no longer be valid. RachelTensions (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Steady (NCT Wish EP) has now been created and added to the category. There are now multiple articles using this category. RachelTensions (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two redirects and a subcategory as of relisting. Is this enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Riize

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only album articles which are already sufficiently categorized in an albums subcategory for the group. This is an unnecessary eponymous parent per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CATMAIN does not provide any rationale for keeping eponymous categories but simply provides instructions on how to categorize articles within an eponymous category should one exist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new subcat are just image files, which would already be placed in individual articles, and the group would be more defining to SM Rookies than the other way around. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 4 subcats added to the root category: Category:Riize songs, Category:Riize EPs, Category:Riize album covers, and Category:Riize audio samples. RachelTensions (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another article was just created & added. RachelTensions (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 4#Category:Riize.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I neglected to ping people. Relisting this time with a ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lostwave

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

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

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