Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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

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

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

How to use this page[edit]

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

Special notes[edit]

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

Discussion for Today[edit]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_May_9


May 9[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:American Splendor artists[edit]

Convert Category:American Splendor artists to article American Splendor
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Artists by comic title or some such and this is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Just make sure they are all listed (with citations) at the article on the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this is a useful category as it includes people not usually associated with their artwork, such as Alan Moore and Joyce Brabner. American Splendor was a unique title in many ways, given it was written by a single person but with dozens of different artists; it seems fitting that it merits a relatively unique category.
As a compromise, what if the category was just converted to "Category: American Splendor", not specifying artists? stoshmaster (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If artists are purged the category will become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was convert this category simply to "American Splendor" and it will house all things related to American Splendor, including the writers, artists, the film, and all related books (if they have separate articles) stoshmaster (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a defining characteristic of the subjects in this category. Moving this to article space is a good compromise between instant deletion and keeping. As a preliminary measure the category content may be copied to Talk:American Splendor before the category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Third-person view[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I've created this one few minutes ago, but maybe the name should be analogous to Category:First-person video games? Consider the existence of Category:First-person shooters and Category:Third-person shooters, with only the first having a parent category outside shooter games (until my creation). Both have main articles. However, third-person view has a redirect to an article section, while first-person view goes to a disambig, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there isn't anything going to be added on a short term then the category might as well be deleted, because of lack of content. It can be recreated when it is more clear what sort of content there is. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian screenwriters by century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Even if a 2nd category were made, it still wouldn't be helpful as this is the only category in the in parent) Mason (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. By the way the subcategory covers the century that is probably the least interesting to people who study history of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem here is that Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters is using the standardized {{Screenwriters by nationality and century category header}} framework — but that template autogenerates an artificially-transcluded "[Country-named-in-this-category] screenwriters by century" as a standard part of its formatting. But that can't be left to sit there redlinked, so either it has to exist regardless of any size issues, or we have to wrap the template in {{suppress categories}} to bork its category generation and then manually file Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters in the other categories that still exist. But that would defeat the entire purpose of using the standardized template in the first place, and would have the side-effect of stranding that category from the Category:Screenwriters by nationality and century tree.
    I'm not at all wedded to this being essential, and have personally wrapped many category-generating templates in the suppress categories wrapper when necessary, but just wanted to point out that there are "standardized formatting" considerations here beyond size.
    Really, it's more a question of whether Category:Armenian screenwriters need any by-century categorization yet — with only six people in the 21st-century category and only 20 in the parent, it's not clear that subbing them out for century is needed at all — but if the 21st-century category does exist, then this is automatically imposed and transcluded by the template as a standard and expected parent for it, so the question is really less about the need for this than it is the need for a 21st-century category to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, I'm not sure how the this comment is relevant to the nomination at hand. And, for the record, it isn't the case the FOOian occupation by century needs to exist. That category is only added if it exists, otherwise, the category is added to FOOian screenwriters. Mason (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person who works regularly with cleaning up redlinked categories at Special:WantedCategories, I have to deal with new redlinked categories autogenerated by occupation header templates of this type all the phunking time. So just telling me that they suppress redlinks isn't convincing when I routinely see hard evidence that they don't. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian gay writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles, too small to aid navigation. All are already in the appropriate sub-categories. User:Namiba 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places on the Underground Railroad[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Specific buildings which served as stations on the Underground Railroad are absolutely defined by it but an entire town, city or county is usually not. In some cases, certain locales like New Bedford, Massachusetts were such hubs of the Underground Railroad that they should be kept in the main category but that can be done on a case by case basis. User:Namiba 15:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean people by descent‎[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with their subcategories which are all "by descent", as well as for consistency with Category:North American people by descent at the top of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings and structures destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. They are all Hindu temples. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracist media[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; perhaps upmerge A lot of these are indeed conspiracist media, like InfoWars. But categories are not a place where we can verify their status as conspiracist. That's a job for reliable sources in articles. WP:RSP can help. But verification of membership is probably a time-consuming effort. If we don't do that verification regularly, this risks becoming a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. But perhaps we should upmerge the category to its parents? NLeeuw (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disinformation operations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel qualified to be a great judge in the matter, but it does seem to be a bit of an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Disinformation operations definitely exist, but what does that mean exactly for categorisation purposes? Sure, Category:Government spokespersons of Russia spread a lot of disinformation, no doubt about that; but does that make them "operations"? I don't think that makes grammatical sense. Perhaps this category just needs to be Purged? NLeeuw (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, to begin with. There are nuanced differences between disinformation, misinformation, propaganda and fake news and this category contains all of that. As we have Category:Misinformation, Category:Fake news and Category:Propaganda as well, it would make sense to remove all articles and subcategories from Category:Disinformation operations if they are already in one of the three other trees. After that is done we may re-evaluate what to do with this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's really not a need to diffuse this category by perpetrator Mason (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League contributors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for parent category, see below. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, all adequately interlinked. See also second proposal above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singles by decade by record label[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophers of theodicy[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think we need to diffuse this category by the specific question in the philosophy of religion, especially since this cateogory only has one person it it. Mason (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, this doesn't seem to be a particularly useful subdivision of Category:Philosophers of religion. Psychastes (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophers by ethnicity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS, there doesn't seem to be a reason why philosophers should be categorized by ethnicity Psychastes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If not deleted, I think that Jewish philosophers‎ should be added to Category:Philosophers by ethnicity. Mason (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"