Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9[edit]

Category:Oxoanions and subcategories[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: rename all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed the moves at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy under C2D (And although I did not realize it originally, C2E would have also applied to some of the categories.), but after the request was removed as stale in the Speedy subpage due to opposition against specific oxyacid categories, I'm taking the oxyanion moves here for a full discussion. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C2D: Consistency with main article's name. In the mainspace, Oxoanion redirects to Oxyanion. However, given the overwhelming number of categories using the oxo- prefix (although one used to use the oxy-prefix), maybe Oxyanion should be changed to use the oxo- prefix. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed these moves along with moves for the corresponding oxyacid categories, but since my initial efforts failed due to specific opposition to a couple of the oxyacid categories, I think that if none of the oxyanion category moves are opposed, those can go ahead. Also, I did not realize the first time that C2E also applies to some of the categories. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:18, 9 March 2019 (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:Fictional mentors and godparents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's rather vague what exactly qualifies for this category, and the godparent part seems to be pretty unrelated to the mentor part JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:38, 9 March 2019 (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:Kenyan superheroes[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: no consensus. If normal editing processes conclude that the category's contents don't belong in the category, then it will be speedy deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category and it's questionable if that article even qualifies (the character's father was Kenyan, but she was born and raised in America and Egypt.) JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:09, 9 March 2019 (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:Place names[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: keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping categories, since toponymy is the study of place names. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - maybe reverse merge. In general we should keep Cat:Study-of-foo and Cat:Foo as separate categories (with the former a subcat of the latter) - e.g. we shouldn't merge Category:Crime into Category:Criminology or Category:Birds into Category:Ornithology. However, in this case I don't think we have many/any articles that are actually about toponymy (even articles such as Welsh toponymy really should be titled "Welsh place names" or similar) so we could probably get rid of the toponymy category. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: will tag Toponymy, so that a reverse merge can be discussed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged --DannyS712 (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge - On the whole I am strongly in agreement with DexDor: "Study of Xyz" cats should always be subcats of the subject being studied. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anomalous+0: Please do not assume that articles with a title starting "Toponomy of" are about the study of toponomy. Instead they are nearly all about the object of study of toponomy, i.e. about place names. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to worry - my comment was specifically about categories. I don't have a problem with articles. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles do not make a distinction between the study and the object of study, then why do we need distinct categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2019 (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:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.[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: no consensus.
This seems to come down to whether the category is viewed as topic category (in which case the rename would probably be justified) or as a set category, in which case the current title has merit. But since there is no consensus for a change, we keep the status quo.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is specifically about the topic of Civil War Defenses of Washington, not "defenses" (lower case) of Washington, D.C., which could include topics such as the Battle of Fort Stevens or other actions/battles (e.g. of the Maryland Campaign) that kept Confederate forces away from Washington, D.C. (I am pinging the category's creator, User:AjaxSmack.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the organization is a proper noun, but the category primarily contains the defenses of the organization, rather than articles about the organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is not an organisation, but a group of buildings and structures. The present capitalisation is thus correct. If preferred it might be renamed to Category:Civil War fortifications of Washington, D.C.. They are all around the city, though many are in neighbouring states. "D.C." is needed because there is also Washington (state), where I presume there were few (if any) defences. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (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:Books by Indian authors[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: keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "books by Indian authors" is a non-defining trait of individual books, and not part of an established existing category hierarchy. Category essentially overlaps existing Category:Indian books by writer and Category:Indian books. For a hypothetical book published abroad by an Indian expatriate, such a category would again be non-defining trivia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: The proposed move is a bit questionable. The subcategory is mainly about works written after the author migrated from India, that hardly counts as Indian books. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: That's why they are in the sub-category and not directly in the parent category. As you know, in English Wikipedia, sub-categories do not have to be logical sub-sets of the parent, but to have a close enough connection for the link to be useful for navigation. IMHO that fits this example. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2019 (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.

Buildings and structures by city[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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. The above categories currently contain only 1 article. It is not quite likely that the categorize size will become 5 or 10 times bigger any time soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Bridges_by_city. DexDor (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DexDor: You struck your oppose in the other discussion. Does this one still stand, or is it similarly struck? Same for the above nom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I struck my oppose on that CFD because of the statement (paraphrased) "The additional <things> in <place> on <foreign wp> would probably not qualify as notable on en.wp.". I still don't support as I think these CFDs are a waste of time etc and because they may have errors (e.g. see my "Dnipro" comment in the CFD above). DexDor (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2019 (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:Anchovies[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: reverse merge per WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. merge Category:Engraulidae to Category:Anchovies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Anchovies" is simply the common name for the family Engraulidae. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the main article uses the common name, but all the taxonomy categories are listed with the Latin names. I guess I was thinking we would merge this way for consistency. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge (or Merge) I would go with Anchovies, especially with Category:Anchovy dishes. But the proposed merge would be better than the status quo so I would also favor that if it's closer to consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- I know what an anchovy is. The scientific Latin family name is gobbledegook to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging Engraulidae so that a reverse merge can be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged --DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anchovy category should be for the species that are used as human food. Many Engraulidae species are uncommon and have small ranges and are not used by humans. Eliminating categories with taxonomic names is wrong-headed. When categorizing new articles on species with HotCat, I just work my way up the taxonomic hierarchy in the taxobox until I find an existing category. Having to guess at a common name for a category, when the common name isn't prominently displayed in the taxobox makes the categorization process more difficult. 23:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep both - the article anchovy states that "An anchovy is a small, common forage fish of the family Engraulidae"; hence the present set-up where Category:Anchovies is a subcategory of Category:Engraulidae is exactly correct. Oculi (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2019 (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:Thiomersal controversy[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: rename. The renaming is supported by only a narrow majority of editors in this CFD, but they have on their side the fact that the title of the head article was upheld at Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines#Requested_move_19_February_2019 by what the closer describe as Very little support, much strong opposition. None of the opposes here offer any reason why this category should be an exception to the basic principle that category titles should follow article titles; instead, they were trying to re-argue issues which belong in the RM discussion. CFD is not the venue to challenge an RM outcome: we have WP:Move review for that.
It's likely that someone will ask me why I have closed this differently to the superficially similar WP:CFD 2019 February 5#Category:MMR vaccine controversy, so I will pre-emptively explain that here. The answer is simply that in this case, there is a recent RM discussion upholding the new title, but in the other case there was not.
And yes, per the discussion on my talk at MMR vaccine controversy CfD (permalink), I utterly deplore the Stalinist erasure involved in the process of redefining a controversy as not-a-controversy because a majority of editors back one belief system which defines the side other as wrong. I have no view on the substantive merits of the dispute, but deplore the denial of a real public controversy. Similar logic was regularly deployed in the theocratic eras of European history: the powers-that be insisted that there was no dispute, just heretics to be burnt. The same logic of "no controversy unless the dominant ideology defines it as a legitimate controversy" is at play regardless of whether the dominant ideology is medieval Catholic orthodoxy, Stalinism/scientific socialism, or — as in this case — scientism.
But that's an argument which I or anyone can make at RM, to be assessed at RM. On this page I am just closing a discussion in accordance with the policy and guidelines relating to article and category page titles, not imposing my own POV. So whatever anyone thinks of the RM outcome (and in case there is any doubt, I think that it stinks as fundamental rejection of WP:NPOV), it leads to the category being renamed unless there is a policy-based reason for divergence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with the parent article, recently moved to thiomersal and vaccines as the word "controversy" gave undue weight to a refuted fringe theory. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The move argument was rubbish. It basically says by giving the name that the people involved used we gave undue weight to the people who orignated the controversy in covering the controversy. This is all part of a new age double speak which we should avoid. This is a controversy, the people pushing it insist it is a controversy, plain and simple. It is not giving "undue weight" to pay attention to what people actually say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed name sounds meaningless to me. Thiomersal was used (and is used) as a component of vaccines (among many others). It is not clear what exactly "Thiomersal and vaccines" would mean? Ruslik_Zero 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Ruslik. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Correct Venue The oppose votes above indicate that the article is misnamed. OK, submit a requested move on Thiomersal and vaccines and reach a consensus for a better name. I'll gladly support renaming this category to match the outocme (whether I agree with it or not). Having different main article and category names hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support . See my reasoning in the Category:MMR vaccine controversy section. This case is very similar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move or delete altogether. It's not a genuine controversy, no matter how much Johnpacklambert moves words around. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the suggested name as a better alternative to the current one. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - As in the case of the effort to rename the parent, Category:Vaccine controversies, this is nothing more than an attempt to make the word "controversy" disappear from discussion of the subject on Wikipedia. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural support following the RM regarding the main article Thiomersal and vaccines which was closed as keep. There has apparently been a fair amount of discussion about this already, and this is not the right place for re-doing that same discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2019 (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:WikiPathways[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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Would be a more accurate name for this category UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more accurate, and keeping in line with other template categories. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes sense to me, and I'm the one who started it. Sorry for not naming it better to being with. Let me know if I can further assist in this process. AlexanderPico (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (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:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68)[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: no consensus. There is a long-standing practice that category redirects may be kept when a category is moved, as happened here. The nominator has taken a very prescriptive view of WP:CATRED which is not supported by others. I also don't believe that the nominator's is supported by the text, because CATRED does not assert that it includes a full list of the limited circumstances in which category redirects are appropriate ... so I see no reason to add extra weight to the nominator's arguments.
I do question whether several screenfuls of Wikilawyering about one category redirect was a wise use of the nominator's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. A Template:Db-empty was added on 1 March 2019‎ by me for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:C1. The speedy deletion tag was removed on 4 March 2019‎ by Marcocapelle with edit summary stated as "why?". User:Tleaver created the category on 13 March 2013, but has not been active on Wikipedia since 13 March 2013. Therefore, no notice was sent to category page creator. Mitchumch (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: According to "Redirecting categories" on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects, we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue."
Point 2: Wikipedia:Soft redirect defines "In limited circumstances" as "a replacement of usual or "hard" redirects and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project, another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website."
Point 3: The redirect destination of "Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68)" is not a "Wikimedia sister project, another language Wikimedia site, or ... another website." Therefore, this category does not satisfy any of those "limited circumstances" and should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. Mitchumch (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Point 1, the next paragraph of WP:CATRED also mentions redirects to former category names when replacing hyphens with dashes (and it's unclear to me if that's a lone exception or an example). In any case, I'm fine with deletion (or a redirect). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the central problem is a lack of explicit conditions to satisfy in order to use Template:Category redirect. Former admin AllyUnion posted "What this template is for" as the first talk page post for that template on 3 January 2006. There needs to be a "Usage" section on the template page that clearly and unequivocally states when to use the template. It was never designed to be used for all alternative names of a category. The other 10 types of soft redirects are more clear as to when to use them. Mitchumch (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first-mentioned purpose of redirects in general is redirection of alternative names, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. I cannot imagine why this wouldn't apply to both hard and soft redirects. Reasons for deleting this category should be taken from this list. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists apply to articles, not categories. Here are the conditions I've observed from different sources:
  • "They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K)."
  • "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects, we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page."
  • "In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations)."
  • "It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics."
Marcocapelle, beyond the three Wikipedia links above, have you seen any other sources that provides instruction in the use of "Template:Category redirect"? Mitchumch (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that there is nothing else specifically about category redirects, we disagree on whether general instruction on the use of redirects also applies to category redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. I'm going to suspend this request for deletion. I will investigate the template further, then I will proceed based on what I find.
Before I wrap this up, have you seen any other sources that provides instructions in the use of "Template:Category redirect"? Mitchumch (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These 6 links may also be helpful:
  • Category Deletion 6: Sometimes there is a request, or it may be helpful anyway, to leave a redirect at the category page. Standard redirects do not work with categories; instead, use {{Category redirect}}.
  • How to rename categories:
  • 3 by default, the old category page will have been replaced with a soft redirect; this should alert a daemon to move all the subcats and articles. For a sparsely populated category, you should recategorise them manually; WP:HOTCAT will help, as re-selecting the old category redirect will result in using the new target name.
  • 4 if you delete the original category page when it is empty, link to the CFD discussion page in the deletion summary. Alternatively, at your discretion, you may leave the category redirect. It is not hard, just a little time consuming. Deleting a category (without assistance from a bot) is harder, since the references on the member pages have to be deleted manually.
  • See also, Essays, Category redirects that should be kept
*Residence: Where the commonly used English name for residents of a place is well-known globally (usually the original place of that name), Fooite demonym categories should be {{category redirect}}ed to People from Foo, assisting in automated categorization (for example, Category:New Yorkers).
  • In article titles: In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). Nonetheless, to aid searching and linking, provide a redirect with hyphens replacing the en dash(es), as in eye-hand span. Similarly, provide category redirects for categories containing dashes.
  • When naming a category, one should be particularly careful and choose its name accurately. Moving non-conventionally categorized pages to another category name (see {{Category redirect}}) imposes an additional overhead – an edit for each article and subcategory.
- RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RevelationDirect, but I found the source for the confusion. On 14:47, 2 August 2018 admin Black Falcon began changing the section "Redirecting categories" from:
"It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)"
"However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)"
"Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects."
"In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics."
to the current version on 14:50, 2 August 2018
"In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]), we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets."
"In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics."
The original language of "Rationale: Unlike articles, categories ..." had been present in the section "Redirecting categories" since 02:58, 20 July 2006. My position remains unchanged from my initial request and rational. The original language of the section "Redirecting categories" was substantially less ambiguous several months ago. That section language needs to be restored to its previous wording to prevent the confusion that led to this lengthy discussion. Mitchumch (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was the confusion that led to this discussion? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon You should have pinged me, because I didn't know you left a statement. Marcocapelle thinks all categories that are alternative names for another category should be kept as a category redirect. Your rewrite of the guidelines on 14:50, 2 August 2018 removed (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)" As a consequence, it is not clear when to use a category redirect. Mitchumch (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take this from a different perspective. Why would the use of category redirects need to be different from the use of article redirects? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument. But, your argument needs to be presented in a discussion for a policy change. This is not that forum. This forum is to apply existing policy to requests. The applicable policy to my request (before an undiscussed edit several months ago) is as follows:
"It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)"
The Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68) does not have articles in it. Mitchumch (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so this is not going to bring us further. As before, I am not convinced that this is a change of policy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle Please mark yourself as "oppose". Mitchumch (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That was an easy request. But why? Are you concerned that the closing admin does not recognise it as oppose?Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wikipedia policy as presented by myself above. In response to Marcocapelle, No. Only a matter of simplicity. Mitchumch (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just to be clear! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle I'm not going to ignore guidelines for an essay. The guideline for WP:CATRED are explicit: "It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)" Mitchumch (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2019 (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:Slovenian Chetniks[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: rename per nominator, without prejudice to any future proposal to rename Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a child category of the existing Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are several reason for my opposition:
    • Renaming is unnecessary because the child category does not necessarily have to have the same wording of the parent category. The parent category sometimes has personnel in its title because it is sometimes child category of parent category which covers more topics than personnel. Child categories of Category:Foo personnel can only be about personnel.
    • Its not about ethnicity. Its about military units divided on territorial principle. Slovenian Chetniks were Chetnik subdivision separate from i.e. Montenegrin Chetniks. The nominator tries to introduce completely unrelated and irrelevant ethnic division into this category. Slovenian Chetniks category exist not to point to Chetniks of Slovenian ethnicity, but to point to Chetniks who belonged to separate group of Chetniks which more closely define them and distinguish from other groups.
    • Per WP:CAT - Don't write the category structure in names. Example: "Monarchs", not "People - Monarchs".
    • Per WP:CAT - Standard article naming conventions apply to categories also. Having that in mind, the existing title is more natural, concise, recognizable and equally precise. Consistent with ie Category:Slovene Partisans.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The clearly established category structure is Chetniks of WWII→Chetnik personnel of WWII and Chetniks of WWII→Military units and formations of the Chetniks in World War II. Moving this to Slovenian Chetnik personnel of WWII does not change the meaning, they are still Slovenian Chetniks as distinct from Slovene Chetniks, which is the ethnic division in this case. The separate subdivision is maintained by moving it to Slovenian Chetnik personnel of WWII, and the category is fixed in time by "of WWII". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per current structure, but honestly the term Chetnik personnel sounds a bit odd. Why not simply Chetnik people? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. There is no need to add personell or people to it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't odd at all Marcocapelle, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then the other alternative would be Chetnik military personnel. The current category name is neither fish nor fowl. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, military personnel is implicit in Chetnik. They were all guerillas, therefore military. And this is a subset of Chetnik personnel of WWII, specifically Slovenian ones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2019 (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:Montenegrin Chetniks[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: rename per nominator, without prejudice to any future proposal to rename Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a child category of the existing Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Same arguments as above presented for Slovenian Chetniks, except pointing to the Category:Montenegrin communists at the end of the text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The clearly established category structure is Chetniks of WWII→Chetnik personnel of WWII and Chetniks of WWII→Military units and formations of the Chetniks in World War II. Moving this to Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of WWII does not change the meaning, as "Montenegrin" clearly can mean ethnic or territorial division equally, so the current name is no different from the proposed one in that respect. The separate subdivision is maintained by moving it to Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of WWII, and the category is fixed in time by "of WWII". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per current structure, but honestly the term Chetnik personnel sounds a bit odd. Why not simply Chetnik people? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't odd at all, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. This just brings it into line with similar categories. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2019 (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:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire[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: rename. MER-C 08:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification, the current names may wrongly suggest that the entire Holy Roman Empire, and entire Switzerland, were a prince-bishopric. Perhaps the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" should also be nominated to "Prince-bishoprics in" but that is probably less needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for the first since the Prince-bishoprics were "of" the Empire, not just sited "in" the Empire. Would oppose changes to the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" since the same potential for confusion does not arise. Support the second proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename target is a better form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposition. As Laurel Lodged indicates, the Prince-Bishops were "of" the Empire, i.e., their secular jurisdictions were (at least nominally) granted by the Emperor, they were not merely located in the Empire, and re-naming the category would obscure this fact. Even stipulating that the potential confusion cited here exists, if it were a sufficiently widespread problem to warrant comment, it would be easy to dispel. This same objection applies to the parent category idea. With regards to Switzerland, "of Switzerland" is a perfectly valid construction; "of Switzerland" can be read synonymously with "Swiss," and they were Swiss simply by virtue of having been located in Switzerland. Furthermore, it would not be universally valid to refer to these ecclesiastical principalities as being "in Switzerland;" the Prince-Bishopric of Basel had lost its Swiss territories prior to mediatization, and thus, after 1792, was no longer "in Switzerland" in any meaningful sense. --Masque (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If a reader assumes that some prince-bishops being of the Holy Roman Empire implies the entire Holy Roman Empire was assigned to prince-bishops, that is their own logical mistake. I don't think the category suggests it. Meanwhile, the proposed rename target, while not necessarily grammatically incorrect, certainly flies in the face of typical grammatical convention. ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For other container categories we use "Bishops in Somewhere", e.g. Category:Bishops in Germany. The fact that the title was "Prince-bishop" rather than plain "Bishop" is no reason to adopt a misleading naming format.
The fact that the prince-bishops also wielded secular power on behalf of the emperor is something to be noted in the text of the relevant pages. The attempt to use the article titles to convey that superfluous info has resulted in titles which avoidably mislead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • What VAR of ENG would describe bishops of the various dioceses in country Foo as being "Bishops of Foo"?
I'm not being sarcastic, just genuinely puzzled. I am used to seeing "Fooian Bishops" or "Bishops in Foo", but I honestly doesn't recall seeing the phrase "Bishops of Foo" being used for any situation other than when they are prelates of the "Diocese or Foo". What have I missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we use "in" for both bishops and princes where their territories are not the whole territory named in the category, e.g. Category:Princes in the British Isles. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as a native of the UK, I don't find anything amiss with "Prince-Bishops in the Holy Roman Empire". Oculi (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2019 (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:Estonian animation directors[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: keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if this cat is merged, then it should be merged to all parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt diffuse proposal. A large amount of this category consists of biographies of American people, so diffusing by nationality would merely lead to many ultra tiny categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category should remain, as all/most "by nationality" categories should. They are extremely useful. Also, the main category consists mostly of American subjects and foreign animators would be possibly lost in the umbrella category. ExRat (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2019 (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.

UKBot[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: keep non-empty category Category:UKBot for now, and delete the others as empty.
Note to nominator @Pppery: this sort of nomination is kinda pointless. If a category is populated only by a group of pages which is at XfD, then there is no point in pre-empting the outcome of the XFD. If the pages are all deleted, then the category will be speedy-deleted as empty per WP:C1; but if any of the pages are not deleted, then the case for deletion evaporates. So either way, there is no need for a CFD discussion. In this case, the TFD has been relisted again at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2019_March_6#UKBot, where discussion is still open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories consisting only of or only used by templates nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 19#UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the related TfD has been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_27#UKBot. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Since they're intimately related to the previously nominated templates, we shouldn't go deleting them here. We don't want to risk the event of deleting categories for templates that are kept, or keeping categories for templates that are deleted. If the templates are deleted, these can be speedied with criterion G8. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2019 (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:Explosives engineering and bomb disposal in fiction[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: rename to Category:Fiction about bomb disposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with other CFDs of this nature, make it more clear that the category should be applied when the topic is a primary feature of the fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2019 (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:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016[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: listify and delete. Both categories have been listified already at Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum#Category:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has been nominated for discussion. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:OPINIONCAT
Brexit is certainly dominant in UK politics today and has been since 2016. But most the current major parties of the UK were founded long before 2016: Conservative (1834), Labour (1900), Scottish Nationalist (1934), Liberal Democrats (1988), DUP (1971), The Independent Group (2019), Sinn Féin (1905), Plaid (1925), Green Party (1990). Looking through the minor parties, most have one line that they campaigned for or against. This is better for a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied the current articles from both categories here so that, if someone wants to create list articles, no work is lost. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then Delete -- This sort of thing is much better done by a list, which can provide some commentary. This is a historic category for party POVs on a particular issue, though one that has dominated UK politics since. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2019 (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:Recipients of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
According to the introduction of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980 article, this award was given to those who were "involved in the Zimbabwean independence commemorations in some way". While this award was presumably given to a lot of people, the only recipients in the category is an Australian military officer and a South African pilot who both served in many other locations and received this award as a de facto campaign medal . We typically don't categorize by campaign medals because career officers serve in a variety of locations and conflicts and categorizing by every one of them creates category clutter. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We've deleted similar broad-based independence medals for other countries here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a routine commemorative medal. Not at all defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2019 (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:Ingersoll Rand[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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Company has gone back and forth with and without the hyphen in their official name; current incarnation is with the hyphen: Ingersoll-Rand. Does not qualify for WP:CFDS because article just moved. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When a company oscillates the punctuation of its name, we don't need to be blown around in the wind by them. I have just created a category redirect from the hyphenated form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 10 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9&oldid=905632943"