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 12:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 636 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).

Opposed requests

[edit]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]

Moved to full discussion

[edit]
This should probably go to full discussion. Per WP:C2D: it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content


  • What exactly is your problem, sir? The vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt). Also, "Museums of Ancient Near East" categories are missing the definite article regardless of your preferences ("Museums of the Ancient Near East" or "Museums of the ancient Near East").--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with adding "the" - it's "ancient" that needs discussion. If it it is true that "the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt)" this is only because of recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why don't you discuss it on Talk:Ancient Near East instead? To begin with, there is not enough people in CFDs to discuss this matter. Also, what "capitalization fanatics" are you talking about? Are you aware that "Ancient Near East" was changed to "ancient Near East" in 2011 (Talk:Ancient Near East#Capitalization)? Here's an excerpt: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"." Since 2011, nobody has talked about capitalization on Talk:Ancient Near East.
Except Category:Novels set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Films set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Sculpture of the Ancient Near East, other categories with no definite article should be renamed in any case. I suggest to stick to "ancient Near East" at first because it's more widespread inspite of your claim about "a handful of capitalization fanatics" (you provided no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and is under discussion). Personally, I don't care whether it is "ancient Near East" or "Ancient Near East", but the current consensus is apparently the former and let's stick to it.--Russian Rocky (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most category and article page names do use lowercase "ancient" in phrases like "ancient Rome" and "ancient Greece" (excluding language designations). See usage throughout the Ancient Rome page, Social class in ancient Rome, Patrician (ancient Rome), Timeline of ancient Greece, Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome, Category:Novels set in ancient Rome, Category:Prosopography of ancient Rome, Category:Wars involving ancient Greece, Category:Battles involving ancient Greece, Category:Culture of ancient Greece, and Category:History books about ancient Greece for examples. I believe we should aim for consistency in article and category names. Many of these pages and categories have had these names for quite some time and were not moved recently. If you would like to use uppercase in phrases like "Ancient Greece", why not propose this at the talk pages of the main pages? WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please. Unfortunately, I can't figure out myself what Johnbod's problem is. He claimed that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" because of "recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus", but there is no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and/or is under discussion. I agree with InverseHypercube on Talk:Ancient Near East who said the following: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"."
  • See The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Appendix A: Capitalization and Spelling Examples) at the Internet Archive: p. 153: "ancient Near East (noun)" "ancient Near Eastern (adj.)".--Russian Rocky (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

January 9

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Palestine

[edit]
Subcategory list
Nominator's rationale: And all sub-categories. Opposed speedy. The country article is now at Palestine as a result of this Requested Moved, the categories for the country should follow. Unfortunately during the years when the Palestine namespace was occupied by a disambiguation page some category disambiguations were put in and this has led to what should be a straightforward move being procedurally objected to. The category names should match the main article for a country. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
This should probably go to full discussion. Per WP:C2D: it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Data visualization and Category:Information visualization

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Main articles were merged in 2022 into Data and information visualization. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visualization (research)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of disambiguator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Category:Visualization (research) is incoherent and should be deleted instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2110s in film

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated poorly populated category far in the future. Move article 100 Years (film) to Category:2110s works. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2114 works

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, too far away in the future for this level of detail, there isn't even a Category:2114 nor is that needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_1#2100s_and_2110s. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from medical malpractice

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/inaccurate in most cases. Most of these deaths are from poor medical care, e.g. James Garfield. But these aren't "malpractice" SMasonGarrison 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Role-playing games by genre or theme

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See discussion/analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme and related discussions just below this nomination. No prejduce for creation of Category:Role-playing games by genre. Relevant wikidata entry: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8672917 (only en wiki has "or"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Board games by genre or theme

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See discussion/analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme and related discussions just below this nomination. No prejduce for creation of Category:Board games by genre. Relevant wikidata entry: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8303517 (only en wiki has "or"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games by genre or theme

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Longer analysis can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme. Short version is:

Category:Video games by theme

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Longer analysis can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme. See also related Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_4#Category:Novels_by_theme (conveniently relisted just below). This should be a reasonably uncontroversial tweak from inexisting Category:Themes tree to existing Category:Topics tree. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster Could you append to this one two child subcategories for renaming:
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Novels by theme

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See longer explanation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme. This is the least controversial (if anything is). It is subcat to Category:Fiction books by topic, there is no Category:Themes or 'by themes' anywhere except in few instances I pointed out in the linked analysis; all themes should be rename to topics since we have a cat tree for topics, not themes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus for a change; though a reminder that subcategories are currently outside the scope of this discussion. (If you want to discuss them, please tag 'em.) Should the change be in the form of deleting or merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster I think we want to merge them. As for subcategories, I am not sure how to tag them properly - could you do it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Which categories do you want me to tag? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster I think the four by theme that I just named above, in response to Marco. But note I am not sure how to rename these four. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to tag the subcategories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:  Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winners of Eurovision Young Musicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with related categories (e.g. Category:Eurovision Song Contest winners, Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners, Category:Melodifestivalen winners) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realized that if I relisted the associated contestants category, then this one should also be relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomatic missions in Santiago, Chile

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 entry. Also propose merging with Category:Buildings and structures in Santiago, Chile LibStar (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 8

[edit]

Category:Eurovision Song Contest people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A random assortment of people who are in some way related to the Eurovision Song Contest, including producers, executives and even just people who have written about the contest. Fails WP:NONDEFINING and specifically violates WP:OCASSOC. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. More specific associations would be useful if they could be sufficiently populated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 9 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]

Category:Unfree labor in the Soviet Union

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat and catmain:
--Altenmann >talk 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unfree labor in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat and catmain:
--Altenmann >talk 21:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College World Series venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. User:Namiba 17:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knights of the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge into the appropriate subcats. Covers exactly the same ground. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern Democrats

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a meaningless category which encompasses politicians from across the political spectrum: it includes segregationists and civil rights activists, neoliberals and social democrats. User:Namiba 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This category represents politicians apart of a Factions in the Democratic Party (United States); similar e.g. Bourbon Democrats, Factions in the Democratic Party (United States), Lunch pail Democrat. They are also associated by shared location. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is Stacey Abrams is Southern Democrat in the faction sense? What does she have in common with Theodore G. Bilbo except being in the same party and from the same region?--User:Namiba 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't unusual for a region's ideology to shift over time. At most points in time however, Southern Democrats have been distinct from Democrats in other regions. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a young adult (1970's), if Wikipedia had been around, I would certainly have considered "Southern Democrat" to be a defining characteristic. 'Twas a simpler time, perhaps. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US families disambiguated by state

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Inconsistent with the usual disambiguation convention. In particular, the speedy rename for Category:Roberts family of Oregon reverted a previous speedy rename to Category:Roberts family (Oregon). No attempt was made to determine if the disambiguator was necessary and sufficient, except for Category:Vann family of Georgia (U.S. state) which I listed at CfDS istead of here because there is no need for disambiguation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete; only the article itself and three articles each. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining association for two items in the Trump category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rock en español categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2A and WP:C2D. Language names are not capitalized in Spanish. Also, for Live Rock en Español albums in particular, rock is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 06:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per associated article Rock en español. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regional Emmy Award winners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen mothers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: (selectively) merge, unnecessary indiscriminate specification of mothers of monarchs: probably more than half of the queens consort outlive their king husband. The title "queen mother" may suggest they had a lot of influence on politics but that varied from case to case. And not all queen mothers even have this title explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, at least for the ones where nom's second assertion is not true. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players from Juniata County, Pennsylvania

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musical families

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly all other families that need disambiguation have the type of career at the end, in parentheses, such as Category:Jackson family (show business). Also, Category:Newman family (music) is already named this way. It's reasonable to standardize these. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't understand the proposal for the second Newman category. Is it a duplicate, or a different family with the same surname? In any case, the fate of the first Newman category remains unsettled.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Renominating (see previous discussion which was a procedural close); WP:PERFCAT (specifically "Performers by production") and WP:NONDEFINING violation (subcategories were already deleted; see previous discussion here). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is dispute about whether this contest (and its conterpart for regular Eurovision) is sufficiently defining to meet the standards of WP:PERFCAT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Renominating (see previous discussion which was a procedural close); WP:PERFCAT (specifically "Performers by production") and WP:NONDEFINING violation (subcategories were already deleted; see previous discussion here) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Eurovision Song Contest generates a lot of publicity, but categories are qualitative (e.g. singers), not quantitative (by amount of publicity). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: See comment below D4NT3023 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: 1. As pointed out below by D4NT3023, the alleged violation (WP:PERFCAT (specifically "Performers by production") DOES NOT APPLY. It would apply if the category was something like Performers in Cats (musical) or Singers who have performed at Carnegie Hall. Neither of these applies: Eurovision is not a venue and it is not merely a performance: it is a competition, like a sporting event. Note wording: "Avoid categorizing performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production (such as The Jack Benny Program, M*A*S*H, Star Wars, or The Phantom of the Opera)." Eurovision is not a specific television production, since the events in the competition vary each year in an unscripted way. 2. The alleged WP:NONDEFINING violation does not apply. As others have commented (refer previous discussion), entering in Eurovision is not a soon-forgotten event like entering in "American Idol". Eurovision entrants represent their country, and in this respect are similar to Olympic competitors. Their status as entrant in Eurovision is invariably a high point in their career and remains something that defines them. Consequently, articles on Eurovision entrants invariably mention this fact as a defining characteristic: for instance, the page for the Irish group Sheeba states "They are best known for representing the host nation, Ireland, in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1981". In some cases, their status as a Eurovision entrant is the only memorable event recorded about them, e.g. Christine Minier. However, other Eurovision entrants have used their public exposure in Eurovision as a springboard to build successful careers, despite not winning on the night, e.g. Natasha St-Pier, Amina Annabi, Cathal Dunne. SRamzy (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Participation in Eurovision is defining because it's one of the first things mentioned about these artists by reliable sources (even in the article about ABBA, their Eurovision participation is among the first things mentioned, despite them being notable for a lot of other things too). That said, this category currently does not have any subcategories, although its scope includes over 1700 artists. Such a large category really should be diffused, which is why I am puzzled by the closure of the previous discussion about the subcategories. That discussion had two people opposing deletion with policy-based arguments, but they were completely ignored. (Besides, I created a few of those categories myself but I was not notified about the discussion?) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality show contestants when they are known for little else. I clicked through several of these areticles and they all seemed prominent as artists beyond the competition. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: I don't think it matters if you're known for other things as well? (Otherwise people notable for two distinct things can't be categorized under either.) According to WP:NONDEFINING, what matters is what sources consistently refer to. As pointed out above, that is the case for competing in Eurovision. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While we respectfully disagree here, I think you have a reasonable perspective for this category. My larger concerns is really with all the more minor feeder contests nominated on this page that would collectively add clutter to the bottom of articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agents-General for Australian states

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Decapitalise General as per MOS:JOBTITLES. Change "for" to "of" for consistency with other categories such as Category:Attorneys-general of Australian states and territories or Category:Treasurers of Australian states and territories Steelkamp (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is agreement that the second g in agents-general should be lowercase, but which preposition should the title use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American federal judges

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that has no expansion or additions in several months, propose deletion Snickers2686 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Riots by year

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Very thin tree for riots by year in this time frame. Merge up and delete would-be empty categories per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, this is not helpful for easy navigation. Some side notes. What is the reason that sometimes one, sometimes two and sometimes three merge targets are specified? E.g. 1640s has just one merge target. Also, at first glance it seems unwise to confound this nomination with a very partial deletion of crimes years. Maybe better just merge to crimes years now and have a separate discussion about the whole crimes years tree later. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Treating recent riots as crimes and categorizing older ones as "conflicts" seems to be a very weird double-standard. And it does not help navigation at all, it just miscategorizes articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, too many very small categories. I'm not overly fond of categorising all riots as crimes, but that is a separate discussion. Categorising them all in the most specific conflict and crime categories would make sense for now, and I agree with upmerging to the broader decade/century/millenium riot categories. Warofdreams talk 22:23, 8 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]


January 7

[edit]

Category:Fictional characters incorrectly presumed dead

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a largely non-important criteria (Being presumed dead incorrectly). This is a fairly common trope across media and generally not important to a given character, which makes a category superfluous. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass shootings in South America by year

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content to necessitate a "by year" category tree. Merge up the "by decade" tree and other relevant categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natural events

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this tree almost coincides with the Natural disasters tree, and the parent "in the environment" categories aren't well populated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I may suggest manually merging the categories not being merged to an "in the environment" category since those articles may already be present deeper in that tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass shootings in New Zealand by decade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Very few mass shootings make it unnecessary to diffuse by decade or century. Merge to Category:Mass shootings in New Zealand and Oceania category (if necessary). –Aidan721 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mass shootings are incredibly rare and there is no need for any disambiguation in the categories. The by decade categories are especially superfluous, there wasn't even a mass shooting in the 2000s (the Napier event lacks citations for the claim and I'll remove it now) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass shootings in Australia by decade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 1-3 articles per decade. Merge to century-level and Decade in Oceania (if necessary). Optionally merge the 2 century categories to Category:Mass shootings in Australia since diffusing by 2 centuries is not necessarily super useful. If the consensus is to merge the century categories, then re-target the decades to the main category as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Númenor

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in here. There is a very low probability of this being filled with meaningful articles. All the other inclusions here are redirects all to the same article, which are already categorized at category:Middle-earth location redirects. Jontesta (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Chronicles of Narnia countries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only threes article here. It is unlikely to be filled with enough articles to justify a category (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form). The root category only has three articles currently and six articles would be better than three. Jontesta (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miami RedHawks football venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT User:Namiba 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFC Asian Cup stadiums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. User:Namiba 15:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Busseron Township, Indiana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might write more articles on Shakers from there, but who knows when, so I'm not opposed to this (as the category creator).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1488 establishments in Spain

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are very few entries in the per-year categories, and not all exists. Consolidate with decade for easier navigation. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 7 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]

Category:Latvian Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finnish Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:America's Classics winners that have closed

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Defunct restaurants and subcategories. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with that. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Then hoping for a speedy rename here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? I am not seeing objection to renaming if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House Committees of the National Assembly"

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Request to remove quotation marks from category name GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nordic Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nebelhorn Trophy templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of these CfD's should be bundled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latvian Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karl Schäfer Memorial templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden Spin of Zagreb templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finlandia Trophy templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Figure skating at the European Youth Olympic Festival templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian Figure Skating Championships templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vanderpuije family of Ghana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All articles of people with this surname are in this family category, so it doesn't need the country disambiguator. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Disambiguation without a base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1889 in Argentine sport

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated isolated category, with several red links when the template is used. I urge the category creator to actually see if there's a need for categories like this before they create them SMasonGarrison 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 6

[edit]

Category:1867 in Argentine sport

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category SMasonGarrison 23:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it follows other convention and fits with others inside Category:1867 in sports by country. Other listings in this category similarly have one category per listing so it is not right to single out the Argentine one. If you are going to merge it should at least be consistent. For the reader it is useful and relevant to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayyn (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 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]

Category:Croatian Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:OFC Champions League participants seasons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Came across these while preparing some speedy renames. In the OFC region, season articles are very uncommon, and each of these only has a single page. It seems that season articles only get created for the winners, if even then. Growth of these categories is unlikely, and the contents also duplicate the contents of Category:OFC Champions League–winning seasons (otherwise, an upmerge might be a decent alternative). No opposition to recreating if more pages get created, but right now these seem to be WP:OVERLAPPINGCAT. If future recreation seems prudent, I'm listing the contents below to re-add the current contents: 2001 has 2000–01 Wollongong Wolves FC season, 2005 has 2005–06 Sydney FC season, 2024 has 2024 Auckland City FC season. - 2pou (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

States and territories (dis)established in YYYY

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of the articles in these categories do not meet the definition of the category: "states and territories (dis)established in the year YYYY". My understanding is that these categories should only include sovereign states (e.g. Italy) and dependent territories (e.g. Guam). Most of the articles in these categories are actually varying levels of administrative divisions.

I propose merging these categories to be by decade rather than by year: new countries/territories are far from an annual occurence.

Furthermore, I think new categories could be created for 1st level subdivisions ("First-level administrative divisions (dis)established in YYYY") as this is more of an annual occurence; then articles such as Alaska and Emirate of Dubai would be in the correct categories. This could also go on to 2nd level subdivisions, but I don't have an opinion on whether or not this should happen.

The vast majority of articles in these categories are lower level subdivisions or even single settlements and should really be in "Populated places (dis)established in YYYY". I would be happy to go through and correct this if others agree. These changes would make it a lot easier for readers to use these categories, especially because having countries mixed in with towns and provinces (for example) all under the same name is quite confusing. harrz talk 20:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Who defined the categories to only include sovereign states, and what would be the purpose of a category of such limited use? It would make the category tree practically useless. Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The description automatically added by {{state est cat}} (which is used on all of these categories) has a link to the sovereign state article, which is where I got that definition from. And like I said, by expanding the scope of the categories to the decades then they would have more use. harrz talk 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree. Those categories are really useful, and should stay. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they are very useful, and I am not proposing that they be removed altogether. However, by combining all sorts of very different geopolitical divisions into one category they become less useful and more confusing for readers to use. That's why I am proposing separate categories for different levels of subdivisions. harrz talk 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alternative solution could also simplbe to to renamte the categories to "States, territories, and administrative subdivisions established in XYZ" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemis Andromeda (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rationale, a "sovereign state" is a modern concept, in the past things weren't that clear. E.g. was a duchy in the Holy Roman Empire a sovereign state? Nobody can tell. By the way, I am not against merging year categories to decade categories, but that is a whole different discussion. [[User:Marcocapelle}}|Marcocapelle]] (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is not easy to define a sovereign state thus some flexibility should be allowed. TheBritinator (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, however there is a limit to the flexibility we can have. For example, I really don't think a random municipality in Poland counts as a state or territory. Either way, there needs to be some more clarity with these categories as some of the things included in them just don't make sense. harrz talk 23:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrz: A lot of this nomination is broken — many entries are Template:Lc and none have a merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this; I am not sure how to fix it but I believe it is an issue to do with template limits as this nomination includes >1000 categories. I used the mass CfD tool to make this nom and wasn't fully sure what to put it as (merge etc.) but I tried to explain what my proposal was in my rationale. harrz talk 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The establishment of Maine as a separate state in 1820 is certainly as significant as the US annexation of Guam in 1898. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator I feel like I might have made some of the details of this discussion unclear. The main thing that I'm proposing is separate categories for different levels of geopolitical entities. For example, a category for countries (could be by decade instead) which can include dependent territories (e.g. the USA), a separate category for first-level administrative divisions (e.g. American states), and maybe more for second-level subdivisions and beyond - although I think by this point it would be better to put them in the more simple populated place categories (e.g. Category:Populated places established in 2025) where most small subdivisions currently are. harrz talk 23:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose my argument is same as Marcocapelle a "sovereign state" is a modern concept, in the past things weren't that clear. In Indian sub-continent for example there were many states ( princely states ), small principalities, dependencies, suzerain states etc - and these categories are actually useful for segregation and should stay.Jethwarp (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Territories" is a vague term, and probably necessarily so. The concept of "sovereign state" isn't clear even today, let alone pre-WWII, and that's not even considering pre-Westphalia. Having the broad, inclusive, cat prevents issues to do with arguments over what means what. A subcat would have to be very clearly defined, and from there a more comprehensive proposal about how it would interact with the main cat might be needed. CMD (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle and CMD. These categories were originally specified by {{Infobox former country}}, with both that template and {{Infobox former subdivision}} since being merged into {{Infobox country}}; boring that distinction was intentional at the time. "Territory" is deliberately vague to account for subdivisions of countries (historic or modern) and the concept of nation-state is meaningless before a few hundred years ago. Separating out modern nations from modern subdivisions from however we choose to distinguish between those concepts anachronistically in the past would be difficult enough but frankly what's the point? How would this benefit readers? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 07:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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,[1] 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,[2] 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]

Wikipedians by defunct WikiProject

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by defunct/non-existent project * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Sam Taylor-Wood

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Sam Taylor-Johnson. DoubleCross (‡) 15:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant WPANIMATION categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories: All templates, categories, etc. are of NA importance to WP:ANIMATION. Delete all of them. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 15:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Likely another WikiProject template that needs updating. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pharmacy schools in Virginia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJPMaster (she/they) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have now tagged all schools in US states with 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NA-Class amphibian and reptile articles of NA-importance

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Has the same entries as Category:NA-Class amphibian and reptile pages, as all NA-class pages are automatically of NA-importance anyway. Comparable to (the much larger) deletion here. Fram (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disasters in South America

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are the only pre-1800 by-year categories for South America. Given what's known about the history of the continent prior to 1800, I doubt these can ever be filled to a satisfactory level. Several of the post-1800 categories are equally small, but they can hypothetically be filled a little further given time. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of Islamic terror groups

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Term "Islamic" terror not used by most RSs online and is near-absent in academia. Label would be contestable for most articles in category per WP:LABEL. "Jihadist groups" is much more prominent term in WP:RSs used to refer to same entities. --OrebroVi (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian federal parliamentary election results by riding

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are template categories and should be named as such. RedBlueGreen93 06:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set on Mars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as for the Moon category below (see also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Works/Fiction_by_setting_(space)). Per my analysis below, this might be restored in the near future once humans land on Mars and we can have non-fiction works documenting this set on Mars. Arguably, if there are notable works (documentaries) about robot (probles) exploration on Mars, this category could be argued to have merit now, but right now it does not have any relevant entries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Jc37. There are only a dozen cats that begin "Fiction set on foo"; all of which can be seen as sub cats of Category:Fiction about planets. In my view all of these should be re-named/moved to Works set on... to fit into the "works by setting" category tree using its standard language. There needs to be a clear separation between the topic category tree and the setting category tree.4meter4 (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Works is a broader concept as it includes both fiction and non-fiction... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set on the Moon

[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) 06:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Works/Fiction_by_setting_(space). While there are broader issues to consider for the parent trees, this and another category about Mars I'll list seem to be pure duplicates in need of merger. Merging works to fiction is based solely on the fact that the remaining categories with that scope are in 'fiction', not 'works' tree (ex. we have Category:Fiction set on Jupiter and for most other planets, but no Category:Works set on Jupiter etc.), with no comment about whether this is good (see broader issues, discuss at WT:CAT talk linked above). PS. Actually, having spent an hour thinking more about this and writing an analysis in the linked talk page, I'd like to withdraw this proposal. Logic being: humans have landed on the Moon; there may be non-fiction accounts of astronaut activity set on the Moon but would not be fiction. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 6 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:Child murder during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: borderline cdc. Siblings in Category:Children killed in wars are all Children killed in FOO war SMasonGarrison 04:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial and Chief Secretaries / colonial and chief secretaries categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:JOBTITLES, we do not capitalize plural forms. These were opposed at speedy, so I am starting a full discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion

Members of the Australian House of Representatives by term

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category and these categories result in career politicians having far too many cats that indicate essentially the same thing. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: Are you proposing the deletion of all its subcategories as well? If so, they should be tagged. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It seemed easier to list the parent than listing 50 categories. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might not all need to be listed here, but they should all have the {{subst:cfd}} template placed on them. I used User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD to quickly tag all the subcategories. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that applies to categories. Jevansen (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jevansen: Even if I didn't miss it (which I of course did), there are still times where the principles are functionally the same, and in this case this is so. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extreme example. It's like using the categorisation of Elizabeth II as an reason to delete Category:Heads of state by country and its sub-categories; or the categorisation of Barack Obama as an reason to delete Category:American people by descent and its sub-categories. The large majority of legislators aren't included in more than a handful of legislators by term categories. We shouldn't be destroying a sensible and useful categorisation structure based on extreme examples.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I nominated this because 8 categories were added to a politician I had watchlisted, which is just over categorisation. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Yeah, concur with Traumnovelle the by-state categories should cover it, and the {{Automatic category TOC}} even far more so. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:10, 3 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) 03:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The established practice of diffusing MP categories by term is good and should be kept. Category:Legislators by term shows that this works pretty well and for many countries and parliaments. It does not conflict or replace parallel diffusion by political party or constituency. The number of politicians with so many terms that it would become cumbersome is not so high IMHO, although this is probably subjective. I don't see anything in the proposed rationale that suggests why there would be an issue specific to Australia. Place Clichy (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Honduras women activists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Can we repurpose this category into the ungendered parent category? I don't see a possibility of British Honduras women activists being sufficiently populated, but maybe British Honduras activists could? Right now there's only Vivian Seay in it. SMasonGarrison 18:21, 28 December 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) 02:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flash television shows

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Better title for the category, to match with its subcategories. 2803:C600:8101:80DD:BC28:5B0:38B5:F109 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs clearer consensus on rename target, but there is definitely consensus to rename somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous leaders of the Americas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, consistent with Category:Indigenous leaders in Canada and Category:Indigenous leaders in South America and more correct grammar. "Of" may suggest that they were leaders of the entirety of the Americas, which was not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for doing the legwork. I'm neutral on "of" versus "in", but I do think it's worth noting that the norm is "Category:Indigenous people of the Americas", and that the rest of the categories in Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation, resemble category:Indigenous musicians of the Americas. SMasonGarrison 21:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • of makes sense equal sense as in in many cases, but it does not make equal sense in combination with "leaders". Leader of X means you are leading X, while the intention here clearly is that you are leading a subset of X. In this particular case in is the preferred form. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I'm convinced by the nominator's latest comment that leaders of... is a misleading combination. Place Clichy (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peggy Jay family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: procedural nominaton, this was opposed at speedy because there was no speedy criterion applicable. Nom's rationale was: "To better summarise the contents as the family is wider than just direct relatives of Peggy Jay." I have no opinion about the proposal myself. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mike Selinker's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Morozov family (merchants)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Everybody with the last name Morozov on Wikipedia is in this category and listed on Morozovs. There are apparently more on the Russian Wikipedia, but that shouldn't guide us here. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different and unrelated Morozov families. One is a boyar family, the other is a merchant family. They should not be merged into one. Otherwise, it may cause unnecessary confusion. Aronlee90 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 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) 02:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassination of George Tiller

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. This category represents a single topic that's covered in the article Murder of George Tiller, and the pages in this category are already linked from that article. Brian Kendig (talk) 01:56, 6 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]


January 5

[edit]

Category:100 Books for Schoolchildren

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I created this category and started populating it, but it came to my mind to check with the community whether it satisfies our rules of categorization. --Altenmann >talk 21:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOPTEN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Holy Roman Empire by subdivision

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, although the Holy Roman Empire also had another type of subdivision, namely Imperial circles, the subcategories here are all by state. Also re-parent the category to Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming (but oppose merging). I'm fine with renaming it to something. I'm assuming you meant to propose renaming to People from the Holy Roman Empire by state. My goal was to help make the parent category navigable. JPL had just dumped all of these states into the parent category.SMasonGarrison 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IShowSpeed

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category should definitely be deleted. There is one single article in this category, and it is overall not quite notable of a topic to warrant a category to itself. ClovisBarnhopper (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deputy prime ministers of Liechtenstein

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To be in-line with Category:Heads of government of Liechtenstein. TheBritinator (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liechtenstein government councillors

[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: meanwhile already deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Government ministers of Liechtenstein TheBritinator (talk) 16:57, 5 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:Unattested languages of the Americas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation when there are only two categories (North and South America) SMasonGarrison 15:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient or ancient

[edit]
copy of discussion at CFDS
  • What exactly is your problem, sir? The vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt). Also, "Museums of Ancient Near East" categories are missing the definite article regardless of your preferences ("Museums of the Ancient Near East" or "Museums of the ancient Near East").--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with adding "the" - it's "ancient" that needs discussion. If it it is true that "the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt)" this is only because of recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why don't you discuss it on Talk:Ancient Near East instead? To begin with, there is not enough people in CFDs to discuss this matter. Also, what "capitalization fanatics" are you talking about? Are you aware that "Ancient Near East" was changed to "ancient Near East" in 2011 (Talk:Ancient Near East#Capitalization)? Here's an excerpt: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"." Since 2011, nobody has talked about capitalization on Talk:Ancient Near East.
Except Category:Novels set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Films set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Sculpture of the Ancient Near East, other categories with no definite article should be renamed in any case. I suggest to stick to "ancient Near East" at first because it's more widespread inspite of your claim about "a handful of capitalization fanatics" (you provided no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and is under discussion). Personally, I don't care whether it is "ancient Near East" or "Ancient Near East", but the current consensus is apparently the former and let's stick to it.--Russian Rocky (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most category and article page names do use lowercase "ancient" in phrases like "ancient Rome" and "ancient Greece" (excluding language designations). See usage throughout the Ancient Rome page, Social class in ancient Rome, Patrician (ancient Rome), Timeline of ancient Greece, Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome, Category:Novels set in ancient Rome, Category:Prosopography of ancient Rome, Category:Wars involving ancient Greece, Category:Battles involving ancient Greece, Category:Culture of ancient Greece, and Category:History books about ancient Greece for examples. I believe we should aim for consistency in article and category names. Many of these pages and categories have had these names for quite some time and were not moved recently. If you would like to use uppercase in phrases like "Ancient Greece", why not propose this at the talk pages of the main pages? WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please. Unfortunately, I can't figure out myself what Johnbod's problem is. He claimed that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" because of "recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus", but there is no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and/or is under discussion. I agree with InverseHypercube on Talk:Ancient Near East who said the following: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"."
  • See The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Appendix A: Capitalization and Spelling Examples) at the Internet Archive: p. 153: "ancient Near East (noun)" "ancient Near Eastern (adj.)".--Russian Rocky (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent. These nominations were opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century churches in Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, these churches were established in Alania and have no ties with Kievan Rus' or the later Russian Empire. Culturally they were part of the Middle East. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no established category tree for this country, and churches seem to be mostly organized by their modern-day locations, e.g. Category:20th-century churches in Russia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening of MPBL category names

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All articles related to the Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League use the abbreviation "MPBL". Also, the league's name in full might be too long for categories. MarcusAbacus (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct cable television channels in Canada

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Local terminology Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cable television channels in Canada

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Local terminology Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships built in Kirkland, Washington

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SYNTH
The only thing in this category is Category:Ships built at Lake Washington Shipyard and none of the 48 ships in that subcategory were built in Kirkland. Rather, they were built at the Lake Washington Shipyard which was in unincorporated King County with the official location listed as "Houghton" on the ship registries. That company quit building new ships around 1945, Houghton was incorporated as a city in 1948, and Houghton merged into Kirkland in 1968. Parent Category:History of Kirkland, Washington more accurately describes the location. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 5 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]

Category:Evans family (Paramount Pictures)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This seems too specific, as most of these people are not directly involved with Paramount except by family connection to Robert Evans. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per precedent about show-business families. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 4

[edit]

Some more non-governmental organizations categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Following up from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Non-governmental organizations (and previous discussions from 2016: 1, 2), however, for the nominated categories, purging individual organizations would leave either none or 1-2 articles. Therefore, I largely propose renaming/merging to general organizations categories (similar to the linked 2016 CfDs), with the merge of Category:International nongovernmental organizations to Category:International non-profit organizations intended as a manual, selective merge.
Regarding Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli–Syrian conflict, I'm leaning towards deletion as I don't think the category (even as Category:Organizations involved in the Israeli–Syrian conflict) is very useful for navigation (there is no article or category for Israeli–Syrian conflict, and it currently only contains one article, which is also already in the parent cat Category:Golan Heights), but I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it either if that's what the majority wants. Felida97 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, Marcocapelle, and LaundryPizza03: Courtesy ping to all participants of the recent discussion mentioned above. Felida97 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge/delete all as proposed by nom. We estbalished that the term is ill-defined and redundant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm on the fence about this category existing, but regardless, I think it needs to be renamed to match the norm of People of African descent SMasonGarrison 20:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:778 in Java

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Largely isolated category with only 1 article. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW. There is no categorization tree for years in Java. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impact and legacy of Madonna

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It is needlessly repetitive to simultaneously have "impact" and "legacy" in a title as this category currently does. Using one or the other is sufficient, and if people don't want "legacy" to be here, then I would also be perfectly fine with just having "impact" instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wartime recipes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 14:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War massacre victims

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to distinguish whether the massacre was war-related? SMasonGarrison 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romani genocide victims

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with survivors and those who died as a result. SMasonGarrison 14:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War crime victims

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think the rename is easier to read, but I'm not sure what others think about this category SMasonGarrison 14:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created both of these two categories, and I turned the latter page into a category redirect for the new page because I specifically thought "War crime victims" would be the superior name. In fact, I would prefer to tag "Victims of war crimes" with the speedy deletion template. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone and take a look at the subcategories which vary from "Victims of X" and "X victims". We should consider standardizing those. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians imprisoned during the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and imprisonment. SMasonGarrison 13:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1686 disestablishments in Iceland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Largely isolated category with just one article. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 14:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1035 establishments in Scotland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is the lone category for X establishments in Scotland in the 11th century with just one article. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.SMasonGarrison 14:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1809 in New Zealand

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the topic article and one event article and is the only year category in the 1800s for New Zealand. Merge up to Category:1800s in New Zealand and Category:1809 in the British Empire. Both articles are already in the Category:1809 in Oceania tree and the topic article is already in Category:Years of the 19th century in New Zealand category so no merging there is needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Similar categories MRTFR55 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by theme

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Novels by theme

Category:Baseball players from Fayette County, Texas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Namiba's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign civilians killed in the Syrian civil war

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No need to distinguish that they're "Foreign civilians", furthermore, many of these people were journalists, which already exists as a catregory Category:Journalists killed while covering the Syrian civil war. SMasonGarrison 04:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: What about Category:Foreigners killed in the Syrian civil war in general? AHI-3000 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about it. If both nominations go through it would be empty. SMasonGarrison 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: Shouldn't it be nominated together with all the other "Foreign people in the Syrian civil war" categories? And for that matter, why is the discussion for the "foreign soldiers in Syria" categories in a separate section below? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used the CFD tool to nominate them, so that defaults to doing them separately. SMasonGarrison 20:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign military personnel killed in the Syrian civil war

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being non-syrian, being in the military, and participating in the civil war. It would just be better to actually categorize these people by their nationality. SMasonGarrison 04:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Podujevo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I do not see the difference between these two cartegories. Robby (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not everything has been tagged for a week; if there are no objections we should be all set to process the nomination :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beaches of Oceania

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 beach article each. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories of Category:People from Tahiti

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: People from X categories are not needed for small communes on the island of Tahiti. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airports in Tahiti

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 airport article for the island of Tahiti. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1727 establishments in Mongolia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is only 1 article in this tree. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1765 in Burma

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All 3 articles are of wars or expeditions that listed multiple years in the 1760s. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1741 establishments in Greenland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article in this tree. Merge/delete –Aidan721 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian federal electoral districts disestablished in 2013

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See previous nomination, except this time for the disestablishment of electoral districts, here those which last were represented in 2015. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very interesting idea. I created these categories thinking it would be helpful. In fact I was originally going to name the categories the way you propose, but I noticed that on the riding info-boxes the year of creation and year of abolishment was "off-election-year" so it was a bit confusing. Is the 2012 Canadian federal electoral redistribution for 2013 or 2015? I have no issue with the renaming - 2015 and 2025 are more useful for corresponding to the elections of that year. - Moondragon21 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 3

[edit]

Category:1788 establishments in Tahiti

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Large tree for only the Kingdom of Tahiti article. Merge/delete per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impact and legacy of Taylor Swift

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: With or without a needlessly repetitive title—having just "impact" or "legacy" would be enough—this category comes off as fancruft. Anything that doesn't even contain those words or Taylor's name in the page titles can be safely removed. We shouldn't turn the website into Swift-o-pedia by lumping simply anything related to her into categories. It might also go against WP:Overcategorization#By being associated with based on the pages I saw it used for. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the category's author, allow me to clarify the situation. I created it because Category:Taylor Swift had a few too many entries. To reduce them, I took inspiration from Category:Impact and legacy of Madonna. I do like Swift's music, but I had no intention of creating any fancruft. The vast majority of my edits on Wikipedia are not even related to her. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the "too many entries" threshold you're referring to is, but for anything she's not personally involved with, one could reasonably remove her main category from those pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian miscellaneous pages

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too broad which is not how categories work. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction about giants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forbes 30 Under 30

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining award. Per the article Forbes 30 Under 30, "1,230 people under 30 years old" get this award each year. SMasonGarrison 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Republican feminists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between political party and political orientation. SMasonGarrison 18:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works set in churches

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article directly in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISNEY categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All files, templates, etc. are of NA importance to WP:DISNEY. Redundant to e.g. Category:File-Class Disney pages. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 09:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church buildings in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to all parents: This also includes Category:Fiction about Christianity and Category:Buildings and structures in fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Columbian provincial electoral districts established in 2023

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing that this category should be renamed to Category:British Columbian provincial electoral districts established in 2024. While I understand the rational behind why the category was originally named the way it was (the new destricts where decided upon in 2023), it doesn't make logical sense as they only came into effect (elected members) in 2024. The naming practice included here also doesn't follow what categories for other countries do on Wikipedia. i.e. the UK, where the Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom established in 2024 exists for constrituencies which came into effect (established) in 2024, but were approved in 2023. On the United States, where congressional districts are sorted by the year they are first occupied, i.e. 2023 for North Carolina's 14th congressional district, and not the year they are apportioned and drawn (2021) or first elected (2024). I believe most other countries follow this latter practice as well.

Similar nomination for Category:Canadian federal electoral districts established in 2023 to Category:Canadian federal electoral districts established in 2025, but for new districts starting in 2025. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Sounds good to me. RedBlueGreen93 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The articles are about WHEN the districts were established, which is 2023. It doesn't matter when the vote is held, it matters when the districts went into effect which is the year 2023, hence the name. User:RushtheeditorUser talk:Rushtheeditor 02:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The districts are created as a matter of law when legislative act are passed (in 2023), but the effectiveness of the act(s) only comes into effect upon the dissolution of the last legislature (in the case of BC, 2024) or the current Parliament (in 2025). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Oppose – I initially supported this rename, although I've reconsidered. These boundaries were not established for the 2024 British Columbia election, they were established for all elections that could have occured and will occur from April 25, 2023 until the next redistribution is approved. Matching it with the 2024 election is innacurate, and isn't really all that helpful as not all of the ridings contested in 2024 were actually established in the 2021–2023 redistribution. I initially supported this because there seemed to be consensus elsewhere on the matter, but ultimately we don't have to follow mediocre standards from the United Kingdom or United States. RedBlueGreen93 06:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I (newspaper) journalists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Changed name last year, and is ambiguous with i (Portuguese newspaper). Paradoctor (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black feminists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm on the fence between deletion and renaming. SMasonGarrison 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per various CfD's for the deletion of Category:Black people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersectional feminists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being a feminist and a type of feminism. At the very least, the child categories need to be purged/restored to the parent category. For example, being a Jewish feminist doesn't mean that they're an intersectional feminist. SMasonGarrison 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superwog

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains the eponymous category along with two redirections. SMasonGarrison 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who aliens

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories with a distinctly similar overlap. The aliens category is bizarrely covering individual characters who happen to be aliens (As well as the Sea Devils for some reason), while the races section is covering the alien species as it is. Due to the high overlap between the cats and the potential for confusion due to the naming, I am proposing to merge both categories into one "Doctor Who aliens" category that can adequately and inclusively cover both categories' content without losing any content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed

Category:Analog Drum Machine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't work with categories much, so I have no opinion about whether this category is needed at all. However, if we're going to keep it, it should be renamed "Analog drum machines" (sentence case, plural) for consistency with category names per WP:CATNAME. Popcornfud (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players from Edwards County, Texas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Namiba's comment? And, if merged, also dual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 2

[edit]

Category:Sportspeople from Judea and Samaria District

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article Judea and Samaria Area. Not technically a district. Same with the child category Category:Footballers from Judea and Samaria District Prezbo (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with music by John Frederick Coots

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To my knowledge, the composer published all of his music under the name J. Fred Coots. His full name, John Frederick Coots, was not used. The vast majority of secondary sources on this person (encyclopedias, etc.) all title their entries J. Fred Coots. The composer also went by Fred and did not use his first name as the name of address. Many publications of the period (newspapers, magazine, etc.) will call him Fred Coots in publications. It is unlikely that anyone familiar with this person would search under the full name, or that someone unfamiliar would know to search by the full name either as most publications don't use the first name John at all and only the letter J. or they drop the J. altogether. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If true, then the article John Frederick Coots will need to be renamed as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1799 establishments in New Zealand

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Large tree structure for one establishment. Merge the lone populated category and delete the rest. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nurg, it's best to not empty categories out of process during CFD discussions. It defeats the purpose of having this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 10:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pashtun diplomats

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection with ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the original category creator, I would support this proposal. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ForsythiaJo SMasonGarrison 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German Women's Hockey League teams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only 2 team articles for the league (1 of which is defunct). Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1970s disestablishments in Portuguese Timor

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, only contains Portuguese Timor, which is already in relevant categories so no merging is needed. Note: I already moved Sociedade Agrícola Pátria e Trabalho up to East Timor, since it was disestablished after the Indonesian invasion in 1975. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Millennia in Timor-Leste

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary layer. We have previously found consensus to delete millennia categories where a country has no chronology categories before 20th century. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ottoman sultans born to Greek mothers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial intersection. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fadrique family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, largely overlapping with Category:Counts of Salona. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rasputin family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need whatsoever for this category, which only has articles for 2 people. There are no other notable family members. I have already added the article for Maria Rasputin to Category:Grigori Rasputin, which is entirely adequate. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newman family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This soap opera family is highly ambiguous given two matching categories of real families with the same name. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neergaard (noble family)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Given the uncommon name, this doesn't need an additional disambiguator that no other noble family has. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nicholson arts family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly all subcategories of category:Families by occupation put the occupation at the end, so this seems no different. Not clear whether (art) or (arts) would be better. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:08, 2 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1267842097"