Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10[edit]

Category:Dr. West's Medicine Show and Junk Band songs[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. Those in favour of keep have the guidelines on their side. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. In the end, there can be only one. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually passes WP:SMALLCAT as the category is "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Quite uncertain if there is much untapped potential for mor song entries. --Just N. (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2021 (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:Bouloussou family of Yanam[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for the "of Yanam" part. Consistency with other cats in Category:Hindu_families. Kj cheetham (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose There is no other family that shares the name and has a dedicated category. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shortenin gthe title does not seem to risk ambiguity here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The shorte cat name risks no disadvantage. --Just N. (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2021 (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.

Vehicle categories containing only redirects[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 all. bibliomaniac15 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ChangJiang vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only ChangJiang and redirects that redirect to it. It does not aid in navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Qingyuan vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only Qingyuan Auto and redirects that redirect to it. It does not aid in navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Suda vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only Suda (marque) and redirects that redirect to it. It does not aid navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2021 (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:People with dementia[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: containerize. Remove the bio articles and keep the subcategories (Category:People with Alzheimer's disease, Category:Deaths from dementia, Category:Fictional characters with dementia, and Category:Sportspeople with chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in it. Tag with Template:Container category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or at least purge the biographies (containerize in Wikispeak). Although this doesn't have instructions explicitly calling this category as being temporary, this seems to be a temporary category and probably not what makes a person notable (e.g., not-defining) - in a quick sampling it seemed these folks are notable first and have dementia later. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining. These people are notable for other reasons. Dementia is common. Rathfelder (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize to keep the subcats together. Agree with non-definingness. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize, i.e. empty the individual bios, but keep the sub-cats and mark as a container category. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These seems as a defining category, as is typically linked to the mental decline of the individuals concerned. I do not think is nature is temporary. Dimadick (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize for Now I have some concerns with the subcats but, as long as they exist, they should be well parented. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise -- emptying needs to be done manually, by distributing contents to appropriate subcats, possibly including the odd new one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize to keep the subcats together. Agree with non-definingness. --Just N. (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2021 (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:Places named after Slave Owners[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. bibliomaniac15 05:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing places named after slave owners is factual and useful info LevitatePalantir (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not the places that have something in common but the people after whom they are named. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be different at all, but that it is not a question for this discussion. Feel free to nominate that category in a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LevitatePalantir: When I first started editing in Wikipedia, I naturally just copied what other people were doing which generally worked but, in same cases, that meant I was inadvertantly violating editing guidelines and then I would proceed to make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I wish I would have taken a quick read of WP:OC sooner. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not copying other people. Y'all can cite whatever examples that make you feel like you're doing the right thing. There's clear bias on this site. Have fun! LevitatePalantir (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. Even though Capitalization is not a Reason for Deletion it hurts My Eyes so Much and Appropriately fits the Qualities of this Category. There was also a recent CfD about barracks named after Confederates IIRC. Place Clichy (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent cited by Carlos and Clichy.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the very definition of ashared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook WP:SHAREDNAME and we had a similar discussion last year. No objection to further nominations if other categories violate this editing guideline. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. There may be limited cases where the origin of a name is significant. Places with German names in Romania would in some cases be the result of Germans having been settled in that part of Transylvania, which would be significant, but would be better dealt with by a more narrowly defined category. However this is not a case where that applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. --Just N. (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (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.

Broadcast station categories[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eliminate redundant categories to reduce overcategorization. Duplicate entries can be purged. Need help with tagging. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Clicked through these and I'm not seeing this doing anything other than breaking up navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Now Tagged at the timestamp on my signature. Probably makes sense to relist for another week to get more input. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or listify. Unless I am missing something extremely obvious about the cultural significance of low-power broadcasting and digital-subchannel broadcasting, a single category for affiliates transmitters of these TV networks should do fine. Place Clichy (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the categories were tagged late.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2021 (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.

People from Arcadia, Peloponnese[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: option A. If there ever are more articles to place in Category:People from Megalopoli, Greece, it could be re-created. (At the time of close, it contained three articles and Category:Ancient Megalopolitans.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION A
OPTION B: as option A plus the following:
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. This concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or few-article categories. Proposal B is to merge all to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, so in this case we keep subcategories for: Tripoli, Greece (31,000 people) and Leonidio (4,000 people). Proposal A is to leave some places alone that used to have a larger population and for which we now have 9 (the first one) or 5 articles (the other three categories), although meanwhile they turned into tiny villages. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either. Rathfelder (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B — as a good first step. I've been trying to get rid of the tiny villages. Also, many of them need purging, as these are non-notable birth places.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A — We assess categories based on the amount of articles that are/can be included. Other factors, such as the population, act as an indicator for the former. These would be considered edge cases, due to their former significance but their current low population, but the amount of articles already in them shows that the categories are viable. Apart from that I will note that none of these categories refer to single villages, but to collections of towns/villages which have historic and current ties (dimotikes enotites). As is said in the article, Iraia "consists of 27 villages". --Antondimak (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A except Category:People from Megalopoli, Greece which should be kept. Despite the current size of the town, it is notable enough since Antiquity that there is probably enough potential content on all historical eras to populate a decent category. Category:Ancient Megalopolitans serves as an indication of this potential. Localities listed in B are also notable enough for a people category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A with no objection to recreating any cats that get up to 5+ articles. (Option B would still be better than keep though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferbly Option A -- In my view if we can get 5 articles we can justify having a category. Option B would be a second preference. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A except Category:People from Megalopoli, Greece which should be kept. --Just N. (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2021 (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:Administrative territorial entities by language[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:Countries and territories by language for now. If we want to change it to some sort of official languages category, let's do that in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents are all named language-speaking countries and territories‎.
with Category:Lists of countries by language to be deleted after manually merging. Most of the articles in this subcategory have "countries and territories" in both name and content, and are specifically "official language".
Administrative territorial entities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted WP:CSD#G5, WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:DENY.
Previously nominated for deletion or renaming:
@Fayenatic london, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, and BrownHairedGirl: to continue focused discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding "official" is not exactly what the category is currently about, to a large amount it is used for ethno-linguistic minorities territories. Implementing "official" by purging would probably result in many smallcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 1/3 are already smallcat. So I'm inclined to "official", but I've posted both for discussion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer keeping the lists and categories and probably deleting these because of the impossibility of defining them objectively short of by official language - which, of course, some countries like the USA don't have although some states (AZ, I think) do. And these change from time to time (Rwanda) making them less defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Lists of countries by language should become a subcategory of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken those two ideas and posted an alternative proposal for action. OK?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge (or merge). Africaans is spoken largely only in South Africa; Vietnamese in Vietnam. We might merge the latter's cat to Vietnamese language, but that will have an odd look. Conversely, the Punjabi category fulfils a useful function in bringing together the Indian and Pakistani provinces/states where it is a main language. Category:Gaeltacht places similarly serves a useful function in bringing together those part of the Republic of Ireland where it is a major language. The Italian category would be better if it categorised the Swiss cantons speaking Italian, rather than the whole country. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: two different issues are mixed up now. One issue is a broad versus a narrow (official) categorization. This is an issue of consistency, as the subcategories are currently not restricted to official language. The other issue that User:Peterkingiron raises is a smallcat issue, but that would require a fresh nomination to propose deletion of the involved subcategories (e.g. of the Afrikaans, Slovak and Vietnamese subcategories). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, hate it when the discussion goes off topic. As I'd mentioned in response, only 1 related sub-category is up for discussion now, raised earlier (and tagged). We'd need further nominations later, once we figured out the scope. I'm interpreting the request for pruning to be a narrow scope. That matches Carlos, and my general inclination for narrow well-defined scopes. Editors don't read restrictions written into category text, often don't even see them (using any of the cat scripts).
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Countries and territories by language per Marcocapelle. This title is a better description of the content of these categories. Changing the scope of the categories (for instance by restricting them to official languages), however, does not seem necessary at this step. Place Clichy (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (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:Wikipedians who use Flow on Metawiki[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title of this category is un-satisfiable, since StructuredDiscussions (previously known as "Flow") is not installed on Metawiki. The body of the category implies that it is actually "Wikipedians who support Flow", which is not a permissible user category per Wikipedia:User categories#Advocacy. Either way, this single-user category is not useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:11, 10 February 2021 (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:Armenians of Romania[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make it clear that this is a topic category about the Armenian diaspora in the country, while individual biographies are at Category:Romanian people of Armenian descent (per WP:COPSEP). Note that neighbouring countries also use Armenian diaspora: Category:Armenian diaspora in Cyprus, Category:Armenian diaspora in Egypt, Category:Armenian diaspora in Georgia (country), Category:Armenian diaspora in Lebanon, Category:Armenian diaspora in Russia etc. Place Clichy (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Category:Armenians of Romania would be a people set category, which this is not. Oculi (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename Per WP:C2C. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but this should not be a precedent for wholesale renaming. There is a difficulty here in that the present Armenia is Ex-Russian Armenia. A lot of Armenians were Ottoman subjects and are dispersed in many parts of former Ottoman Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. --Just N. (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2021 (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:Abandoned amusement parks in the United States[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Defunct amusement parks in the United States" is the preferred category as it is inclusive of all former amusement parks. How does one determine how long a park is "abandoned" for? Therefore, it is tough to gauge what articles belong under this category. Additionally, it is not used as often as "Defunct amusement parks in the United States". Astros4477 (Talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (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:Wikipedia categories named after subdivisions of the United Kingdom[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 to delete. That said, there doesn't seem like much of a strong policy-related arguement to keep these either. So no prejudice against a follow-up nom, which takes the concerns in this discussion in consideration. - jc37 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a maintenance category populated by template. Duplicates parent's sub-categories and list categories.
Followup to:
@RevelationDirect: as requested.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - fundamentally flawed nomination based on misunderstanding. Doesn't duplicate anything. Oculi (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once upon a time, I heard some editors made claims like The Eiffel Tower is somewhere under Category:France (true), the Eiffel Tower is not a country (also true), therefore Category:France can't be under any country categories without miscategorizing the Eiffel Tower (Ummm...) and preceeded to orphan categories left and right. That argument missed that we often categorize by the main article and it obviously lost the day since Category:France is currently under 6 country cats. Even if you disagree with my opinon though, let's work it out and come to a consensus instead of creating (non-administrative) adminsitrative categories that are really alternative navigational categories (that are hidden so readers can't navigate by them). - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EPON gives the example of both New York City and Category:New York City in Category:Cities in New York (state) so putting Category:County Down in Category:Counties of Northern Ireland is correct on ENWP. The Category:Counties of Northern Ireland defines the content of Category:County Down that is to say it says that the content of that topic category should be for the county not that all of its content is of counties in Northern Ireland. I think this rule is to make it easier to fine such categories for example some topic categories lowe down such as Port Charlotte you will likely know its a village on Islay but on the German Wikipedia the category is under Rhinns of Islay and people might not know its there or expect that topic category to exist. With the English Wikipedia's method I think it does make things easier in general but since as noted not all the things in a topic category belong to its parent set category this may cause problems when using tools to scan the tree but this doesn't seem like a major issue. Another issue that sometimes arises is that Renwick, Cumbria is in Category:Kirkoswald, Cumbria since its part of the parish but not village but Category:Kirkoswald, Cumbria is also in Category:Villages in Cumbria so it may show up as redundant categorization. The 3rd issue is when you have a topic category that applies to a set category but the topic category is also sub divided by that set for example there is Category:Kirklees>Category:Geography of Kirklees>Category:Geography of Batley but Category:Batley also is geographical so should the "Batley" topic category be in the "Kirkees" category of the "Geography of Kirklees" category and if it is in the latter should "Geography of Batley" be in both "Geography of Kirklees" and "Batley" or just "Batley"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are hidden categories though so they're not for reader navigation, but for editor maintenance. All the examples in WP:EPON are visible categories for navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All (fine with review) Having a visible category and a hidden category do the same thing is redundant and administrative categories need to have an administrative function per WP:PROJCATS. (Willing to help with manual review.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keeping some sort of organization among eligible eponymous categories is helpful. If we want to abandon such a way of organizing things, a much larger omination is required. Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: Thank your for a different perspective. Can you share how this type of category is helpful to you? - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- This is tagged as an administrative category, which implies that it should be facilitating WP admin. What function does it serve? If none then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, seems a duplication. --Just N. (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. There are a huge number of Wikipedia categories named after foo categories, mostly used to track WP:eponymous categories, which often are not themselves categorised (while the articles are). The practice is described at WP:CATMAIN. However, the situation is wholly messy in practice. Sorting this out would require wider discussion at a more central venue than CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Incorrect. WP:EPONYMOUS explicitly states: "An eponymous category should have only the categories of its article that are relevant to the category's content." None of these categories would ever be on its main article, so they must not be on an eponymous category.
  2. CfD is the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. All changes are discussed here, before recording in the guidelines. This centralized discussion prevents missing those that otherwise would take place on Talk pages of subpages of what was (at the time) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) with many subpages.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much we need such categories on the English Wikipedia since the categories are normally put in set categories that define their scope such as the fact that Category:Crawley is in Category:Towns in West Sussex, Category:Non-metropolitan districts of West Sussex, Category:New towns in England and Category:Unparished areas in West Sussex so there's not a huge benefit here to have the category but I suppose it does have some utility in that people doing maintenance work can easily find all district categories. On the German Wikipedia (which has lots of "named after"/"X by") categories since topic categories are only put in other topic categories so these are needed to define them since without it people may think Category:Stanhope, County Durham and Category:Rothwell, West Yorkshire are only for the settlements rather than the far wider parish/unparished area. We could also have Category:Wikipedia categories named after civil parishes in England and Category:Wikipedia categories named after Unparished areas for example but most can already be found under the sub categories of Category:Civil parishes in England and Category:Unparished areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2021 (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:16th-century executions by Germany[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. Note that Category:17th-century executions by Germany also exists. It was not nominated in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of "16th-century execution by Italian states". No state of Germany existed in the 16th century. Executions within the Holy Roman Empire were carried out by states within that Empire, not by the Empire per se. Would also be OK with "in German states". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for now. Ultimately it should become "of states in the Holy Roman Empire" but the nomination is an improvement anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if renamed, for the sake of {{navseasoncats}} on succeeding categories. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I do not think the Emperor carried out executions except in the territories where he was the actual ruler. However Germany is a convenient shorthand for Holy Roman Empire, so that I regard the present name as acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2021 (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:People executed by Italy[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: split to Category:People executed by Italian states. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of "16th-century executions by Italian states". Most of the contents are various Italian states. The exception is the current state of Italy, although that's still an Italian state. Would also be OK with "by Italian states". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2021 (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:Airlines in Alaska[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:Airlines based in Alaska. bibliomaniac15 06:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy, because apparently this category should include airlines operating in Alaska regardless of where they were based. I do not see how it would be DEFINING for airlines to be categorized along not only to the place they are based in, but also all the places they serve (good luck for some airlines), or why airlines landing planes in Alaska should be treated differently than other Airlines of the United States by state (WP:C2C in principle applies). I know how aviation is important to Alaska, but the nuances of Alaskan airlines from Alaska serving Alaska from elsewhere will probably be better covered in article List of airlines of Alaska than in a hotchpotch category. @RadioKAOS, Good Olfactory, Hugo999, and Funandtrvl: pinging contributors in speedy discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Airlines in Alaska to Category:Airlines based in Alaska – C2D in Category:Airlines of the United States by state. Place Clichy (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — This is a repeat of a previously unsuccessful speedy nomination and should have been taken to full discussion instead of being brought back here. The nominator spends all their time on Wikipedia working on categorization matters and appears to desire "one size fits all" under their myopic view of the encyclopedia. OTOH, this shows that the category as created was intended to include airlines operating in Alaska regardless of where they were based. Editors with topical knowledge were not invited to participate in the first discussion, as if it were an attempt to game consensus. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • RadioKAOS, let's yes–assume good faith and no–attack users personally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Watchlists, revision histories and Special:Contributions exist for a reason, namely transparency. I'm tired of seeing one editor's choice of narrow specialization proving detrimental to the contributions of other editors or the project as a whole over and over again, inevitably followed by the knee-jerk invocation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and similar as a shield to excuse it away. Forum shopping to avoid a larger community consensus epitomizes bad faith. United States topics especially suffer from this mentality by categorization specialists, where the 50 states are merely venues to push one size fits all and any context unique to those states is treated as irrelevant. Why are people so hellbent on sidestepping the purpose given when this category was created, especially when I pointed it out again? It's yet another attempt at an WP:OWN hijacking of this entire namespace. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Half the world's airlines might choose to transit Alaska; that would not be a defining thing; it would be the subject of a nice list. Being based in Alaska, however, is indeed notable and defining. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. 'based in' is defining, 'operating in' is not. Airlines merely operating in Alaska should be removed. Oculi (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. This category could be very long if it included every airline that has a stop in Alaska, and it isn't notable. I agree with the other supporters. Microwavedfork (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2021 (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:Russian Empire people of Moldovan descent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is wrong on 2 accounts. 1°) It was created for Sergei Rachmaninoff, whose article informs us that "the family name can be traced back to the 1400s when Yelena, the daughter of Stephen IV of Moldavia, married the eldest son of Ivan III Vasilyevich, Grand Prince of Moscow. A son named Vasily was nicknamed "Rachmanin", meaning "lazy" in Old Russian." A single 15th-century ancestor and last name etymology are not defining in terms of descent. 2°) In English, the terms Moldova and Moldovan are used only for the modern country and its predecessor the Moldovan SSR, created in 1940 on a part only of the larger region of Moldavia (adj. Moldavian). Any use of Moldova/Moldovan for events or people before 1940 is therefore anachronistic and incorrect. Place Clichy (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2021 (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:Mayors of Berbera[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 as nominated and to appropriate "People from FOO" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs with just one or two entries. As always, every city in existence does not automatically get one of these the moment it has just one or two mayors to categorize; mayors do not get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, so there's no guarantee that a mayors category is actually expandable to the minimum size. So a city needs to have four or five mayors with Wikipedia articles, not just one or two, before a dedicated "mayors of city" category is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom but Dual merge also to People from Region category (the current other parents of the nominated categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge for Now to People parent cat. No objection to recreating any if they ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge for Now. --Just N. (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2021 (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:Mayors of Jever[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 as nominated and to Category:People from Jever. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just two mayors of a small city. Jever (pop 14K) is not large enough to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors under WP:NPOL #2 (even one of the two mayors who is here now has been flagged for basic notability issues), so it's far from certain that this category is readily expandable. As always, every town and city does not automatically get one of these the moment it has one or two mayors with articles -- it needs to have at least five, and a city this size has no guarantee of being able to get there. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2021 (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:Victims of domestic abuse[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, subjective, and potentially libelous. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a quick read of the lead section of our article domestic violence to which domestic abuse redirects, shows that nearly anything could be seen as being included such things and being grounded as a kid, forced to go to church as a kid, chores, spanking, and basically anything that one can conceive that may have been coercive or unhappy in one's childhood counts. Therefore, not defining, as within such an expansive view of what constitutes being a victim of this, my guess is that a vast majority of people are encompassed by this category. Given its more heinous forms, it presents the WP:BLP problem because many of the abusers may still be living and while the abuse they may have inflicted was making the victim wash dishes or take out the trash, that is tossed in the same category as physical violence and spousal murder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we find Victims of human rights abuses‎ and Victims of police brutality‎ to be OK? Both are also somewhat subjective. I believe the word domestic is intended to mean "in the home" and of one adult by another, not punishment of children for not doing household chores. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a problematic category, also problematic in real life, because it usually depends on the account of the victim only. If kept, the category might be limited to victims of cases in which a conviction took place. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extremely bad idea, Marcocapelle. Letting the legal systems decide on whether someone experienced abuse rather than reliable sources? Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do the same for perpetrators ("people convicted of") so the idea is not that bad. The point is that, in most instances, reliable sources do not make a claim about someone being a victim of domestic violence, they rather make a claim about someone asserting that they are a victim of domestic violence. If my idea is not workable then deletion is the alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (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:Practical aesthetics actors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining characteristic. While practical aesthetics does exist as an acting style, it's far from clear that an audience can readily pick out "practical aesthetics acting" as a distinctive type of acting that changes the finished product; it's not, for example, as though you could watch a film or TV show and tick off which actors were trained in "practical aesthetics" and which ones weren't just from observing their acting itself. So it's just not a good basis for a category, because it doesn't define the acting in a visible-to-the-viewer sort of way. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2021 (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:Sleepy Wikipedians[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not meaningfully different from Category:Lazy Wikipedians, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/April 2008#Category:Lazy Wikipedians in 2008. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 10 February 2021 (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:Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Category:Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism

Category:Extinct insect families[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I am aware, no extinctions of insect families have been happened in the modern age, and therefore the scope of this category completely overlaps with that of Category:Extinct insect families, I therefore propose a merge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge "History" has more to do with a time-line of before and after human recordation and is probably inappropriate for taxonomy categories generally. What is notable about the insect families is that they are extinct; whether they did so before or after humans wrote about them is not defining for the families. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the rapidity of losses in insect populations suggests that the rationale of that cat is reasonable to be seen as high potential for growth. --Just N. (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (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:Similarity and distance measures[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. This seems to be about all the discussion we are going to squeeze out of this. The distance measures have been upmerged to Category:Distance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category focuses on metrics used to measure the similarity between two things, i.e. similarity measures. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support presumably similarity and distance are inverses or negative/positive differentiators from one-another; I don't like Category:Distance measures suggested above, because the normal thought process of a reader is that it would include meter, foot, furlong, angstrom, and such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further clarification on my previous comment: if we move the distance articles, I support the proposal as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2021 (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:Films directed by Fred Allen (editor)[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 done. We'll count this as a C2D speedy rename. Good Olfactory 22:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After the page move of Fred Allen (editor) to Fred Allen (film editor), the category should hold the same name as the article. All films that were in this category already have the new name as red link. Therefore please delete this page after the move, so it does not get used accidentally anymore. Sprachraum (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Lugnuts – but when does the old category get deleted? Once this request is closed? Or do I have to request that separately? No articles were linked to the old category anymore, and there are not going to be any external links to a category like this (which is the stated rationale for leaving redirects from article moves in place). But if it left in existence, future links to it would appear blue to the linking user, who might not even realize that he/she should be linking to a different category. --Sprachraum (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(post-close comment). The old cat has been nuked. But if it had remained, and an article was placed into it, then a bot would eventually move it to the correct category. Compare with Category:People from Los Angeles, California, for example. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:00, 12 February 2021 (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 Order of Mehr[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Mehr is an award to "to honor the status and the position of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran". The category only contains one article on Monireh Gorji, who was the only women elected to Assembly of Experts for Constitution right after the 1979 revolution, which is remarkable accomplishment. Getting this award decades later just reflects that prominence though and the article doesn't even mention winning it. (I'm not going to argue WP:SMALLCAT here though since there are other winners who hopefully won't stay redlinks.) There is already a list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2021 (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:Order of the Croatian Cross recipients[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of the Croatian Cross is a combination campaign medal and wound decoration for soldiers injured in the Croatian War of Independence. Unfortunately, non-fatal injury in war is far too common to be defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2021 (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/2021_February_10&oldid=1138412472"