Jump to content

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_October_7


October 7

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Centuries in the Southern Nigeria Protectorate

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the Southern Nigeria Protectorate mainly existed within one century, all content is already in the two decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of statutory instruments of the Welsh Assembly

[edit]

Category:Fictional populated places in Mexico

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is not about a fictional location, but a short story. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional jackals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles that are about fictional jackals, the rest are either works that should not belong in a fictional character category, or are redirects. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OCVENUE is not policy; we are not bound by it. Also, bad nom to only nominate this and none of the other venue categories pbp 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OCVENUE makes an exception for "how a specific facility is regularly used" and the contents here are dominated by the New York Yankees and New York Giants (i.e. how it's regularly used) so the location seems defining. (It's not clear to me that there is a still a consensus for WP:OCVENUE generally but that's not really important here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Morley–Ellenbrook line

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main page has been moved due to a name change, so the category should be too. Steelkamp (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the operator of the line https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/news/latest-news/hello-ellenbrook-line agrees with that JarrahTree 10:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This trust has now been merged and renamed, see the article at Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Elshad (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diseases and disorders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This was moved to the current name via a 2008 decision with very little discussion. However, the main article is disease, not diseases and disorders. This makes the category not match the article. I believe it should be moved back to the broader "Disease" to match the main article, which does not only include individual diseases but also the entire topic of disease. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category tree is suppose to include chronic disorders, not just diseases. Mason (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason: The article disease states that a disorder is a form of disease. Disorder (medicine) is not an article. That means the current title is redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This rename makes it seem like you're removing disability and related concepts from the tree. Even if that isn't your intent, I see no advantage to this rename beyond brevity. I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities. Moreover, I do not want to have to argue that Autism is a disease rather than a neurological difference. Mason (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity is established Wikipedia policy, see WP:CONCISE. On the other hand, having something not cause offense to people is not. In fact the opposite is true, see WP:NOTCENSORED. So if the argument is that classifying many things under a disease banner will cause offense, it isn't really a policy-based reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have missing my point. @Zxcvbnm I am trying to avoid have people misunderstand the category. "I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities." This means that I expect many people to misunderstand that disease includes disorders. And I do not want to have to explain to people that over and over again that this definition is broad. WP:CONCISE says that the goal is to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." What I am saying is that the new name does not provide sufficient information, and that for example, Autism is not some term people intuitive consider a disease. Mason (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AAGPBL teams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and one category in each. Already covered by other categories so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This name is *really* confusing. I suggest changing it from occupation to (people) to make it clearer that this is about individuals. I'm very open to alternatives. Mason (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Asian actors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The practically same category was deleted un British actors of Asian descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_20#Category:British_people_by_ethnicity_and_occupation Pinging @LaundryPizza03: from last discussion. Mason (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor disputes in Ghana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now: Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Updated the target after the speedy move).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ghana is a distinct country and has a specific strike within the category. I think it would be damaging to remove this category and to try to homogeneous it with the broader continent of africa. The lack of more then one strike is more reflective of a systematic bias towards focusing on north america and europe rather than a lack of historical strikes. Thanks, User:LoomCreek (talk)
  • That bias will probably exist, but the only remedy is having more articles about the topic. As long as that is not the case the category is just a hindrance in finding related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are now two articles in the category, the Positive Action campaign which involved a nationwide general strike in 1950 and a played a critical role in Ghana's independence years later. I plan to expand the article to cover all the specifics around it. So I think at this point removing the category would most definitely be detrimental.- LoomCreek (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern United States independence activists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be highly overlapping Mason (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Category:Transgender in Russia, it seems the problem is Transgender being an adjective, rather than a noun word or noun phrase. Then I think transness is a good alternative solution, as that's the most accepted noun for transgenderness in English, similar to the Francophone equivalents transidentity (transidentité) or transitude, which are less common in English. Another option would be "Transgender topics", which would be more recognizable. --MikutoH talk! 01:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative - either Transgender topics or Transgender people. I definitely don’t like transness - as the dictionary entry says, it’s about a condition and that just sounds worse, being transgender isn’t a condition defined by one’s transness, which is why it’s also listed as synonymous with other such terms that are similarly considered to be pejorative nowadays. Raladic (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support transness I don't see a good alternative to that that makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but oppose the name "Transness". It's unclear to people who are not familiar with the topic. Either of the alternatives are fine with me, such as Transgender topics in FOO, Transgender rights in FOO, etc. I'd need convincing for Transgender people in FOO because it will get mixed up with FOOian transgender people (a.k.a. nationals of a country who are trans. Mason (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it may suggest but so would these. --MikutoH talk! 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, prefer transgender topics for now. The adjective has bugged me for some time, but I haven't been able to come up with a better term myself. Transness is too specific and rather obscure. I thought of Transgender issues in Foo, but that conveys a non-neutral tone. Topics sounds a bit meta/redundant (every Wikipedia category covers a topic), but is probably the best option, unless someone can come up with something else. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for transgender topics in lieu of a better suggestion. Both the current titles and transness are confusing titles, with the latter being just an obscure neologism.
  • Support Transgender people in Foo. It would be consistent with Category:Women by country, which uses Women in Foo and not Women's topics in Foo. 1857a (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Transgender people in Foo per 1857a. That is in inescapably the best and clearest description of the unifying topic of the subcategories and articles these categories contain. Transgender history is the history of transgender people, transgender rights are the rights of transgender people, etc. The category description can specify to use the Fooian transgender people subcategory for individual biographies.--Trystan (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transgender topics for now. Language is evolving quickly here so we may have to revisit this, but this seems like the clearest and neutralist terminology for now. (Open to altnernatives except for "transness" which seems unclear to me.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local politicians by nationality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistensy with (grand)parents, some cousins/siblings, and some children. --MikutoH talk! 01:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've made a couple of minor modifications to fix obvious spelling errors ("Keynian" instead of "Kenyan", "New Zealan" instead of "New Zealand", "Belguian" instead of "Belgian"), but otherwise I'm neutral on this. As long as it's consistent one way or the other, I don't really care all that strongly which form is used. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I apologize for the mistakes. However, New Zealand is the adjective for NZ people: Category:New_Zealand_politicians. We need to rename the entire category tree if that's right. --MikutoH talk! 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't. But you typed "Zealan", as in without the d on the end of it. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOps sorry I confused it. Yeah it was a typo, my keyboard may have eaten it. --MikutoH talk! 02:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination appear to be based on the expectation that, for example, Category:Local politicians in Ireland is intended as a set of local politicians from Ireland. When, as far as I can tell, it is a set of local politicians in Ireland. (Citizenship and nationality are not, presumably, the same thing as representation or location. In Ireland, for example, while local representatives must be "ordinarily resident in Ireland" (..) "You do not have to be an Irish citizen".) Are we happy that all of the members of all of these categories are grouped by nationality (as implied by the nom). And not by location/representation (as implied by the category names)? In short, are "local politicians by nationality" the same as "local politicians by nation"? (I'm not personally sure they are...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose
    1. Country is not the same as nation.
    2. as noted above, the current categories are about politicians in a country, not from a country (or nation)
    3. Specific to Australia, Local government in Australia is a thing. I'd read "local politicians" as being the ones who live near me (or the people they represent) rather than living near where parliament sits or being "parachuted in" to a safe seat. That is particularly about state and federal politicians, local government is much more local in Australia, particularly in some states.
--Scott Davis Talk 11:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For previous similar discussions, see:
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed Italian fascists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge. Non-defining 3x intersection between cause of death, nationality, and political orientation. Notably, there's no Category:Executed fascists category tree. Mason (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of these people were executed not for ideology alone. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MikutoH talk! 02:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"