Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3[edit]

American stations with a three-letter call sign[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with a shared naming characteristic. The characteristic highlighted in these categories is trivial and is covered well in List of three-letter broadcast call signs in the United States. Stations with three-letter call signals are older stations, since the issuance of three-letter call signals ceased in 1930. But unless we want to keep these categories as a type of "old stations" categorization, I don't see the point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 3 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.

Polygamous wives[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 close is no bar to re-listing, especially as the initial discussion focussed on WP:G4 and WP:SMALLCAT, but the later contributions bring up WP:SUBJECTIVECAT which is worth a fresh discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories were deleted in 2007. They are far from complete (not every wife has an article) and both have lists: List of Joseph Smith's wives, List of Brigham Young's wives. I think there are a few more articles for both categories than there was at that time of the 2007 discussion. I am neutral on deletion (I created the Joseph Smith category), I just wanted to turn it over to CFD for a decision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why would these be deleted but not the other categories in Category:Wives by person?--User:Namiba 00:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. The previous discussion only dealt with these two. The discussion was a long time ago and perhaps many of the subcategories of Category:Wives by person did not yet exist. There are some differences. Most of the wives of Joseph Smith and many of Brigham Young's were not "wives" in the traditional sense. Many of the women were simply "sealed for eternity" to Smith or Young in a ceremony, and that was it – no cohabitation, no conjugal relations, no children. Many of Smith's wives continued to be married to other men with whom they did cohabitate and have children. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, these seem to be fairly defining characteristics. The previous time the rationale was WP:SMALLCAT but that is no longer very applicable either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as well. They are no longer smallcats.--User:Namiba 12:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are not small categories. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Small or no longer small cats - who cares? ->Those co-existing lists are IMHO fairly enough for that trivial contents! --Just N. (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to the complex and often contested nature of the marriages, especially in the case of Joseph Smith, there are nuances that need to be considered through a list and can never be adequately covered with a category. Even the Joseph Smith list is highly suspect since it under uses the most published expert on the subject, Brian C. Hales. Multiple experts have published lists of the wives of Joseph Smith that do not agree, and some very competent researchers would challenge the use of the term "wife" for some women who Joseph Smith was sealed to but there is absolutely no evidence they ever stopped living with their existing husbands in a maritial relationship. The contents here are too contested to ever adeqautely be covered by a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the statuses of some of Smith's and Young's "wives" are contested, but I think most of the articles in these categories are relatively clear-cut cases. Except maybe Fanny Alger in the Smith category. But the whole source of her notability is being a suspected wife of Smith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, seems like it's a reasonable complement for the header list article List of Brigham Young's wives, List of Brigham Young's wives. I would assume that at the time of the last AFD there were hardly any articles on the wives in mainspace, but that's no longer the case. Whether, the list themselves or the articles on individual wives are actually notable is another question however...--Prisencolin (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (there are already lists, so no need to listify) - The question of smallcat is immaterial. The names of the categories are not "suspected wives of..." - These would seem to be good examples of where a list is more appropriate than a category. Being in a category is a binary proposition, the article either meets the inclusion criteria or it doesn't. And since that would appear to not be possible to assess in several entries of these categories, and as it appears to not just be a simple matter of pruning, these should be lists per WP:CLS to allow for explanation of inclusion, and not categories. And since the lists already exist, this is a simple Delete. - jc37 02:22, 3 April 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:Unidentified vehicle accident victims[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual content. Just half a dozen redirects which take you to List of unidentified decedents in the United States. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, circular links (from article to category page back to the same article) are just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects of Jane Does and John Does that points to a list of unknown people. I can't see how it would aid navigation per WP:RCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cats are not appropriate means to transport that concerns! --Just N. (talk) 15:27, 9 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:People who died in office[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Category:Dead people or containerize, at least remove the articles (most of them civil servants, for whom dying in office is entirely trivial). If the Judges subcategory is deleted (which is discussed elsewhere) then there is all the more reason to delete merge this category as a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining for individuals.--User:Namiba 00:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Everybody dies. Dying is WP:NONDEFINING for any occupation. We already have Category:Assassinated people subcategories for notability. Do not merge, all of these should already be in Category:Dead people under Category:Deaths by year container. We don't really want to force the closer to verify each and every one of these is in another proper subcategory of Death, the editors should have taken care of that.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete this category was discussed in November of last year (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_5#Category:People_who_died_in_office) and my opinion really hasn't changed. But for ease of the closer, I'll repeat it here: what is "in office" mean? Monarchs, US federal judges, Popes, generally have lifetime "offices", so it's not particularly notable for the biographies of Edward VII of the United Kingdom or Pope John Paul II or Ruth Bader Ginsburg that they died in office. Is being the host of Jeopardy "in office" or being on a current team roster "in office" or is "in office" mean only a government position? The pope being head of state of Vatican City would qualify, but would the Archbishop of Canterbury or Eastern Patriarchs? Again, dying in such position whether termed "office" or not is not unusual over the long history of them. Dying before retirement is not particularly notable; it's a common ending for the less well-to-do and workaholics. So how are these notable ...? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A defining trait, and you are just nominating the category because it survived the previous discussion. Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is defining about it? Is it something we commonly put in the introduction because it is one of their signature achievements?--User:Namiba 13:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining. (BTW, Wikidata has SPARQL queries to create such lists). -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the US federal judges are appointed for life. Starting in the mid-20th century plans for retirement were introduced, but at least Supreme Court justices still regularly die in office. I can easily think of other office holders, like monarchs, who in very high numbers of cases die in office. This is not a broadly defining category of all public office holders, and since office can include membership on various community boards this will not be defining overall.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon to renominate. This was discussed recently. Are we now letting nominators turn around and take new bites at the apple until they get the result they want? BD2412 T 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for renaming five months ago. User:Rathfelder nominated it for deletion. I think your history and terminology needs correcting.--User:Namiba 01:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you nominated it for renaming, but the consensus of participants was to "keep" the category. I am baffled by this drive to delete useful and sourced information from the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 03:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you read the close correctly. It explicitly says "do not rename" as the first three words. It says nothing about keeping.--User:Namiba 14:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the close also says that there is consensus to create Category:Politicians who died in office as a subcategory, which entails keeping the supercategory. BD2412 T 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF and all above. Dying in office is not on its own defining; no credible argument to the contrary has been raised either in this discussion or the previous one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 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:Presidents of the United States who died while in office[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) 00:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the discussions on UK MPs and judges, the act of dying in office is not defining of US presidents or any officeholder. Category:Assassinated Presidents of the United States exists as does List of presidents of the United States who died in office so no information is lost by deletion. User:Namiba 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree that it's not defining for MPs, it wouldn't be defining for politicians in general.--User:Namiba 21:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably you are right, but still the politicians category has not been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Everybody dies. Dying is WP:NONDEFINING for any occupation. We already have Category:Assassinated American politicians subcategories for notability. Do not merge, deal with Category:Politicians who died in office later with this as a template argument.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A defining trait, caising monents of succession crisis. Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not defining for the person who dies. Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept it should probably be renamed to Category:Presidents of the United States who died in office (i.e. remove "while") to match the parent and UK MP categories. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge for Now per RevelationDirect. --Just N. (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge overall dieing in office is not defining. It is way to common. However in the case of US presidents it may be defining. With presidents term limited to 2 terms no president of the US has died in office due to natural causes since the term limit admendment was imposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is much better covered by a list, and since there are only 8 subjects, it seems a list will do well. We do not have to categorize by every intersection of life event and office. A list will give more information, we do not need a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most deaths do not implicate succession to the highest office in the land, much less some legal procedure for designating a successor. It is noteworthy that as many U.S. presidents have died by assassination as by natural causes (and the jury is still out on Zachary Taylor). BD2412 T 01:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:United States Presidents and death.--User:Namiba 18:47, 14 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:Taxa named by Joseph H. Wales[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT--I have attempted to find other taxa that Wales described, and have not been able to locate others. As he is deceased and will not be describing any more taxa, having a category with one member is not necessary. Enwebb (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and nominate more. A single editor's rapid creation of small cats doesn't fit the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exception in WP:SMALLCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RevelationDirect yes, WikiProject Tree of Life is aware of the sudden flush of new categories from this editor, many of which I believe will eventually be deleted. Discussion here. Enwebb (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and nominate all others where the author does not have a Wikipedia article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all — the content of the taxa is not notably by the person who named them, it is notable because multiple 3rd parties have used them.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who named the taxa has no actual defining incluence on the animals in it, so this is a by name category we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 9 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:UK MPs who died in office[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; content merged to Category:Politicians who died in office for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delegate as non-defining. Death is universal and simply dying while holding office is trivial. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_2#Category:Judges_who_died_in_office for a similar discussion. User:Namiba 13:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the difference between MPs and judges, is that if an MP dies in office, it then triggers a by-election. And in some cases it's very much a defining attribute. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it defining (in the way Wikipedia defines the term) for a biography? Is it something that we would put in the introduction of an article? Category:Assassinated British MPs already exists for those like Jo Cox who were murdered BECAUSE of their position. Note that this category includes 8 biographies and the nominated category includes 776.--User:Namiba 17:45, 3 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:Zip-line[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 4#Category:Zip-line

Category:11-M conspiracy theorists[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 11-M redirects to 2004 Madrid train bombings. "11-M" is used in Spain but not widely outside of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 3 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:Macedonian archeologists[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 & rename. The possible ambiguity over place of origin or area of study may not have come up before (cf. Category:Historians by geographical subject area / Category:Historians by nationality), and it would need a more comprehensive nomination to diverge from the current pattern. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: both categories refer to the ame topic and the only differerence i s the spelling in archeology vs archaeology Robby (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the one article in the only subcat of one of them is a citizen of North Macedonia. Just cutting to the chase...perhaps overly optimistic on that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As WA Simpson noted earlier in the discussion, this does not apply to nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 12 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:Dolores O'Riordan[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON for only 2 directly-related articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:23, 3 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:10¼ in gauge railways in England[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 (and do not delete redirects). No prejudice against a broader nom concerning fractions in category names, at editorial discretion. - jc37 02:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just wanted to check that this is required for compliance with MOS:FRAC. If consensus is against this move, an exception should be noted there. I can imagine some readers seeing "¼" and trying to type "1/4" and being frustrated at the mismatch. There are other categories similarly named which would also need to be moved. -- Beland (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Redirect I'll defer to others on the correct approach, but either way, we should leave redirects. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the new name hard to read (in regular view).
MOS:FRAC has this: "Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½ [...] Exception: In special situations ...".
I worked with these titles a lot. Always thoug it was OK, but cannot find the right MOS now. (see Category:Track gauges by imperial unit). -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (sign 1h late)[reply]
  • Comment despite the existence of this and other track gauge categories with precomposed fraction characters in the name, the MediaWiki search engine finds no results when searching for ¾ (or ¼ or ½) in category space so cannot be used to judge prevalence. A Google search tells me that Category:7 ft ¼ in gauge locomotives and its sibling Category:4 ft 8½ in gauge locomotives exist, and I'd suggest these are treated the same as this one. Category:Lil' ½ Dead albums, Category:Ranma ½ (and several subcategories) would seem to be based on proper names and so are not directly comparable. Given google fails to find most of the track gauge categories with these characters (including none with ¾), we cannot be sure that the above is a complete list of other categories with these characters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good research, thx. And in absence of any countering MOS, convincing. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had an idea and downloaded the title dump and ran a few greps. Almost all the categories with pre-composed fraction characters are subcategories of Category:Track gauges by imperial unit, Category:Locomotives by gauge and Category:Ranma ½. The exceptions are *Category:The 2½ Pillars of Wisdom, Category:Wikipedians who like Ranma ½ and Category:Lil' ½ Dead albums. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of 77 categories containing a pre-composed fraction character as of the 1 March 2021 database dump
½
¼
¾
⅜
⅝
⅞

There are no categories with names containing ⅛ or any pre-composed third, fifth or sixth fraction characters.

Comment: About displaying. While having the proposed title like Category:10 1/4 in gauge, we can apply {{DISPLAYTITLE}}:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:10 <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> in gauge}} → title shows like: "Category:10 1/4 in gauge railways in England".
This is using the regular keyboard slash "/", not fraction slash "⁄" (as {{Frac}} does}}). -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing -- Whatever the outcome, redirects should be retained in all cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until there is a discussion about the general case of pre-composed fraction characters in category names. Above I list 77 categories with pre-composed fraction characters in the name, I've now looked for categories with a keyboard / in the title. There are 6564 of these (as of the 1 March data dump), but exactly two could be theoretically replaced with pre-composed fraction characters, and I'm not convinced that would be correct: Category:Venezuelan Summer League Tronconero 1/2 players, Category:Venezuelan Summer League Venoco 1/2 players. There are exactly 4 categories that contain a fraction slash, all are redirects: Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways, Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Rwanda, Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Tanzania and Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Uganda. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. MOS:FRAC has this: "Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½. But leave redirects. --Just N. (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until solved: changing the categorty name might introduce a difference with the eponymous article. See WP:C2D for this. This congruence trumps single-pagetitle spelling. So, the Moves should be applied to similar-named articles simultanueously, or not at all. (Of course, these could/should have an XfD too). DePiep (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the closing admin advise a process to apply? -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not the closing admin but an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains sounds like a good starting point. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While most of the 77 categories are related to rail transport, not all of them are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about railroads, it's about having frac-characters in a title. As I understand it, it applies to Ranma ½ and Category:Ranma ½ as well (not for revenge, but for consistency re applying MOS in this). -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the origin of the MOS objection to pre-composed fraction characters? I've not been able to find it in any archives (although it's possible I missed it). Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not met such a MOS either, User:Thryduulf. Should this discussion be RfC'ed as a MOS proposal? -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: I think we should wait for this discussion to be closed (almost certainly it'll be either keep or no consensus). If Beland or anyone else gives a rationale why pre-composed fraction characters should or should not be allowed in article and/or category titles, either generally or in specific circumstances then that can be the basis of a MOS proposal (as an RFC or otherwise as those more experienced in such matters regard as appropriate (the rationale in this discussion is just checking whether it meets the current MOS:FRAC guidance which is both vague and of uncertain origin, so not a good starting point imo). Relevant Wikiprojects should be informed of that discussion if it happens. If the discussion concludes that precomposed fraction characters should be avoided (generally or in specific circumstances) then we can start requested moves for any affected articles/categories/other pages. At the moment my view is only that where precomosed fraction characters are used, there should be redirects from the ascii equivalent (something that a bot would likely be able to implement trivially). Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sound. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the articles are renamed too, per DePiep. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to rename articles. I don't see any railroad ones that have fractions in the name (though I haven't done a grep) so probably there are only a small number like Ranma ½ and The 2½ Pillars of Wisdom. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That would require a requested move. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, it could also just be done as a normal edit, but I just asked at Talk:Ranma_½#Fraction_in_page_title if anyone would have any objections. -- Beland (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I've flagged this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains as well, but I still think that any change of this magnitude should be discussed in the general case first with all affected pages tagged rather than in a nomination ostensibly about only one category. Especially given the disparate nature of the subjects involved (rail transport, anime, literature), category naming and manual style. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would this also affect page titles, such as 9½ Weeks? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This CfD, no. A future MoS discussion, possibly. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, the main objection to precomposed fraction characters such as ¼ relates to accessibility. Accordingly, I've left a note at WT:WPACCESS#Precomposed fraction characters such as ¼ in category names. On that matter, please would contributors respect WP:LISTGAP? Random switching between bullets and colons causes plenty of accessibility issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The listgap issues are likely, at least in part, due to using the reply tool (see WP:TALKPP), which always indents with a colon and doesn't always get the preceding markup correct (and compounds any errors made manually). There are at least a couple of phab tasks related to this, e.g. phab:T276510. Thryduulf (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side comment Category:4 ft 8½ in gauge locomotives Should definitively be merged with Category:Standard_gauge_railway_locomotives as an unecessary duplicate and per the common name (4 ft 8 1/2 in IS standard gauge)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: I was about to comment that that should be uncontroversial and could just be done independently of this discussion (making one a redirect to the other) but then I noticed that it's standard gauge railway locomotives (nothing else has the word railway in at first look) and is actually a subcategory of the 4ft 8½in category. Then I spotted that the whole tree is a mess, with e.g. some narrow gauge categories being direct subcats of the main, others a subcat of the narrow gauge subcat and others (e.g. 2ft gauge) categorised in both. I suggest that we have a discussion somewhere about what we want the structure to be and then clean it up, moving and renaming as required. Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On second look, the Category:600 mm gauge railway locomotives also has "railway"... the more I look the more mess I see so I'm going to bed now, it can wait! Thryduulf (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: (and anyone else): I've now proposed a structure at Category talk:Locomotives by gauge but it needs discussion and there are questions that need answering before it can be implemented so please join the discussion there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – ½ and ¼ are part of ISO/IEC 8859-1, so they're fine accessibility-wise and there's no point in moving the categories. Graham87 04:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all railway categories where they are. No opinion on non-railway categories. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Graham87 has no issues regarding accessibility, that's good enough for me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 23 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:Wikipedia categories named after regions[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. In case any consensus emerges later to restore the deleted similar category for US regions, they can be found here.[1] But at the moment there is neither a clear rationale for deletion, nor an explanation of how these might be useful. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a maintenance category populated by template. Duplicates parent's sub-categories and list categories. WP:PROJCATS prohibits these categories.
Followup to:
@RevelationDirect: as requested.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I give wide lattitude when editors come forward and write "I need these administrative categories because they help me improve the encyclopedia by allowing me to ..." Can you help me understand what administrative purpose they serve? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are not duplicate categories. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:PROJCATS. Administrative categories need to have a plausible administrative function to help the encyclopedia. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:30, 3 March 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) 11:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CfD is the central venue for this kind of discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just went through every single visible category under these hidden ones and the only one with a main article under "regions" without the corresponding category was Category:Everglades which I fixed. (Conversely, there were several categories in this tree whose main article is not under regions, like Category:Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt.) While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this nom is specific to 4 categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • CfD is supposed to be for discussing specific categories in accordance with existing guidelines. In cases like this where the guideline seems to contradict itself (WP:CATMAIN mentioning the use of such categories while WP:PROJCATS says such use is inappropriate), it seems best to first attempt to clarify the guideline. While consensus at CfD could serve as the basis for such action, one covering handful of categories like this is not the way to go; instead it should be a combined nom covering all 2,569 categories (if I count correctly). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        1. CfD is the forum specified by WP:RFC#What not to use the RfC process for. 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.
        2. I'm seeing no contradiction in WP:CATMAIN, could you please cite the specific sentence?
        3. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this nom is specific to 4 categories. (Thanks RevelationDirect.)
        4. Nobody should ever nominate 2,569 at a time, that's a certain WP:TRAINWRECK and an abuse of the process.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What we have here is the issue of whether or not to have and/or how to organise container categories for eponymous categories. WP:CATMAIN mentions the use of these tracking categories: "If eponymous categories are categorized separately from their articles, it will be helpful to make links between the category page containing the articles and the category page containing the eponymous categories... An example of this set-up is the linked categories Category:American politicians and Category:Wikipedia categories named after American politicians." (Emphasis added.) While it doesn't directly address how they should be set up, the guideline clearly recognises the use of these container categories. However, with the practice of marking these categories as hidden following the above-linked 2012 CfD, their use would appear to contradict WP:PROJCATS, as suggested in the original nomination. Pushing through with CfDs such as this, targeting small groups of categories without systematically addressing the underlying issue, is going to lead to a mess of results. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Paul's "..." skipped an egregiously pertinent sentence: The template {{Related category}} can be used for this. There is no evidence that applies to the nominated categories. (I've checked the links.) There is no underlying issue.
            William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • These are not navigational categories for readers covered by WP:CATMAIN, they're hidden administrative categories for editors. The 2012 nomination you referenced speculated they were "for what is apparently project-side work." - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on the categories, but just to address some of the policy statements above, I do not see where these are prohibited per WP:PROJCATS. Yes they are in mainspace, but they are "hidden", per that section. And a category does NOT need to be populated by a template to be considered an administrative category or a maintenance category. Automation is always treated as a convenience, never as a requirement. - jc37 23:51, 3 April 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 Friedrich Order[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Friedrich Order was a general purpose award from the German Kingdom of Württemberg although most of the recipients in these categories were from other German states. This award is generally mentioned in passing in articles for non-local recipients like Karl von Bülow, Wilhelm Heye and Alfred von Tirpitz. Interestly, people actually from Württemberg seem to be a mix of mentioning the award in passing or not at all like with Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg, Otto von Moser, Eberhard von Hofacker, and Friedrich von Gerok (officer). Neither group seems defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 3 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:Henry Hope Reed Award Laureates[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Henry Hope Reed Award is an interesting award for architecture that is given to non-architects which creates a diverse list including a poet, historian, preservationist, government official, philanthropist and landscape designer. The thing about an architectural award for non-architects is that it's non-defining: 1 article mentions this award in passing, 1 in the lede, and 7 not at all. The recipients are already listified here within the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 3 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:Congolese independence activists[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) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, people in this category aren't clearly independence activists. The category is a hodgepodge of politicians in the early 1960s in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville), the Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa) and regional politicians in the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Oculi, Fayenatic london, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I meant Brazzaville instead of Leopoldville. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independence activism tends to be pretty messy. Do you think these are much less defined than those of other countries?Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know about other countries but these biographies contain very little information about independence activism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lumumba: "October 1959, Lumumba, as leader of the MNC, was arrested for inciting an anti-colonial riot in Stanleyville; 30 people were killed. He was sentenced to 69 months in prison". Sounds like an independence activist to me. Oculi (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a recurring issue with our loosey-goosey definition of activist. And to combine with motives. Were the folks who dumped tea into Boston Harbor American independence activists? They are viewed as patriots in the US, but could as easily be viewed as tax protestors (hence, the tea party movement with its anti-taxation program). Similarly, is Jefferson Davis a Confederate State of America independence activist - or just a traitor? Most of the early politicians of any country are retrospectively viewed as independent activists for that county's independence and most of these folks seem to be notable for their post-independence political roles. Why can't we just categorize them as such rather than try to fit a label "activist" which WP cannot even define properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independence activists are a bit better defined than some of the other activist categories. Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably differs from case to case. In a struggle for independence that lasts for more a decade, people are more likely to become notable as an independence activist. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 17 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) 00:00, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_3&oldid=1073193131"