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_June_23


June 23[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Fictional chimney sweepers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most articles in here are works of media, which don't belong here anyway, while the one character that does can be merged to Category:Fictional domestic workers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 15:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Philippine Basketball League teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The Philippine Basketball League is defunct for several years now, so all of its teams are now its former teams. Upmerge to Category:Philippine Basketball League teams. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female entertainers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, possibly some subcategories will merit a dual merge to Category:Fictional entertainers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tracker musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Tracker software is commonly used to create chiptunes, such that there is a very significant overlap between the two categories. Given the mostly overlapping and duplicative nature of the categories, a merge seems warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, there is some overlap, but a tracker does not imply chiptune, and not all chiptunes made with a tracker. Also, "tracker" is strictly a type of music software, while "chiptune" is also considered a genre of music. If it makes sense to merge them into a single Category:Chiptune and tracker musicians, I'd be fine with that. Or maybe by platform, e.g. Nintendo musicians, Amiga musicians, etc. --Vossanova o< 01:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is preferable to the status quo, so I am fine with that too if people disagree there is an overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rock, Rock, Rock![edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not a lot of opportunity for growth here. The two songs articles can be merged to Category:Songs written for films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
I would suggest to take out “I’m Not a Juvenile Delinquent” and “You Can’t Catch Me,” then just leave that category as it is. However, I guess deletion might be a solution for Wikipedia I guess. So fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I oppose this deletion because WP:SMALLCAT is not approved and these songs were written for the movie. Therefore, leave it as it is. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, keep. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated, so opportunity for future growth is no longer an accepted argument. The two songs were written for the movie, so they appear to be intrinsically related. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I think it's best for it to be deleted. It's Wikipedia, but I agree. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see the need for an eponymous category for a film's music that only contains its soundtrack and two songs from it. They are already well-linked by other means, and there is no scheme for such categorization for similar films (no Category:Flashdance, no Category:The Woman in Red (1984 film), which each have articles for its soundtrack and multiple songs), only by the music of film franchises per Category:Film music by media franchise. Rock, Rock, Rock! isn't a franchise so even a move to Category:Rock, Rock, Rock! music doesn't make much sense (but that would be a better option than the current eponymous named one). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
    Best regards,
    Inajd Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! since that category only includes these characters and the game itself. The characters are all still in that category, so there is nothing to merge here. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator. Admittedly entirely forgot about the parent category when creating the category, so I agree with the redundancy issue. Though I agree, I still would have appreciated it if we could have finished discussing this before nominating it for deletion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I probably should have gone a bit slower. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, especially since this category is getting deleted either way. Apologies if I was a bit accusatory by accident there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per it being a mistaken creation according to category creator. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, agree with redundancy, but better keep the subcat in order to keep the content in the tree of Category:Indie game characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not redundant, it falls within an established category tree and has a clear purpose. I should remind people that WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Small cat might not apply, but neither does saying that we should keep a category just because it's "established". Mason (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the practice of grouping characters by game is a well-established one. This falls under that scheme and there is no reason to remove it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that it's redundant to the already existing DDLC category. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not redundant when it's a valid subcategory. Categories don't have to have things directly in them to count as a full category. Having a fully populated subcategory still counts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Doki Doki Literature Club!.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: If we are going to keep this, I would support keeping both and oppose a merge. I think this category is redundant, but I think it makes sense to have the other category even if this one exists. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British women Marxists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse this category by nationality? Frankly, I have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining. Mason (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sibling cats suggest:
More than enough to populate this category. I might add that a lot of subcategories in this tree do not feature a single woman. Women are underrepresented as part of biographies on British Marxists, and I don't think upmerging this category is going to help address that gender gap at all. NLeeuw (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on populating?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but Populate per NLeeuw. There are loads of people who fit into this category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaya[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the category seems to be about the Federation of Malaya. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the history of Malaya/Malaysia is more complex than just merging 'Federation' JarrahTree 08:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaysia since Independence[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent Category:Contemporary history by country that I just added. Else at least change "Independence" to "independence". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling change - what might seem contemporary in some contexts may not be understood clearly as to the specific starting point is actually contemporary or not JarrahTree 08:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:History of Malaysia (1957–present). That matches most other categories in Category:Contemporary history by country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more comments on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Wallachian poets[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 3x merge there are at most 6 people in this poet tree, without a real need to diffuse by century. I made a potential merge target category because Category:Wallachian poets didn't exist as a category.Mason (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is significantly less of a chore to create small intersectional and valid categories than huge category trees, which can be created at any ulterior time for reuniting the smaller categories and any articles that remain loose. I would rather create "18th-century Wallachian poets" instead of "Wallachian poets" (or rather "Category:Poets from the Principality of Wallachia" -- the two nomenclatures currently compete), if the latter option has me tagging all the articles on Wallachian poets, then sorting them by retagging the same articles with the respective narrower category! It reduces my workload and it is sheer common sense. Note how, in the "military personnel" tree, you had them all fitted nicely for you to just unify the categories; but of course you didn't realize that a lot of articles on Wallachian soldiers from other centuries (say: the 15th) are now not in the category you created, and of course you didn't go searching for such examples to include in the larger category you created (you also didn't realize that the category level you created should now include other trans-chronological articles, such as Category:Spatharii of Wallachia, all of whom were a sort of military personnel). You see: that would be the sort of work required for the part of the category tree that I hadn't bothered created, and the sort of workload you're now externalizing for others. (My contributions focus mainly on content creation, with all the intricate research this requires. I find category creation necessary, but boring -- implying that I should spend my time here on creating potentially immense categories, or hunting down articles to fill out the immense categories that others create, is a bit presumptuous. Just like other requests of that nature, for instance that I should fill out more redlinks to demonstrate to my colleagues here that a category is sufficiently valid -- that "18th-century Wallachian poets" is at least as valid a category as "Aqua members".) Dahn (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: Category:Moldavian and Wallachian poets is rather pointless. I had created Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers back when we didn't have a category tree for both former countries, and to address the fact that chroniclers, a sort of occupation that is entirely in the past (for a genre that ended in the early 19th-century), had a trans-border shared tradition of history-writing (and a limited number of articles to fit in there). While this shared tradition can also be argued for poets: if we already have poets in the Wallachian category, what is the exact point of creating a category (other than the already existing larger Romanian one) for "Wallachian and Moldavian poets"? Dahn (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I modeled the parent of Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers, because this is not my area of expertise. I'm fine with an alternative target, and would have much preferred that a parent category existed instead of having to make an educated guess. Mason (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have to say I do not understand the logic whereby we "only" have a category for "foo fooians" if it is demonstrated that there are "enough" (a never-defined "enough") articles to populate it. Sure it would be absurd to have a category for just two articles (though, again, three is apparently enough in other cases). But a category exists not just to neatly group the articles in a shelf; it exists to facilitate navigation, to quickly allow our readers, through this unique instrument offered by our platform, to see all the connections between a set of articles. The evidently absurd example you provide with Category:20th-century Aqua (band) members (I do understand the rhetorical point, but still) shows that you simply do not regard this as an important feature, that you do not conceive of any practical situation in which a reader may need a quick navigational tool for seeing what and how many were the Wallachian poets in the 18th century (including all the utterly mediocre ones that would not be mentioned in a properly developed Literature of Romania), and that you do not see it fit to ask why me as an editor would conceive of a tool to assist such a reader. I find that a bit arresting. Dahn (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DahnPlease just make all the proper parent categories. It's not an unreasonable ask. Mason (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not helpful? Please elaborate on that point. Dahn (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.g. from Mihai Iștvanovici there is only one other similar article that you can directly go to, which is not very informative. By merging you can directly go to 5 other similar articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
44 subcategories to Category:18th-century poets by nationality, yet just one gets singled out. Interesting. Also note that of those 44, fully 10 have less than 4 articles included. Biruitorul Talk 07:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support 6 is not a lot for a category, but although there is no consensus on the mininum amount of items per category at any given time, WP:MFN (the work-in-progress guideline) recommends to merge for now if a category has fewer than 5 items. I don't feel too strongly about the need to merge these categories, but it's fine with me to do so. NLeeuw (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target? (see Marcocapelle's alt proposal)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose century categories are useful and standard for poets, and the rationale invoked is vague — there is no clear consensus about how small is too small. — Biruitorul Talk 18:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete; the idea for this category clearly came from a good faith place but I don't see how helpful it is. Losing a pregnancy is a lot more common than people think, and the further back you go in history the more common it was. Its not a defining characteristic of any of these women even though it was likely a defining moment (or moments) in their lives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. and agree with the assessment that its creation was in good faith. There might be a handful, like Catherine of Aragon, where you could make a case that it was defining, but it's a stretch. (And if anything henry the 8th's experience with pregnancy loss would probably be more defining...) Mason (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An earlier discussion closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose I do not see any arguments being advanced why the earlier discussion (less than a year ago) should be disregarded, or how all the opposing arguments presented then should be ignored, or why those arguments have somehow been undermined or overturned. If you're just here to redo a discussion without bringing new policy and guideline-based reasons to do so, that is not helpful for the process. NLeeuw (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion until Marco added a link to this. But I can give you a more detailed reasoning. You can say this category can also come under WP:TRIVIALCAT since, as painful it is, it is trivial that a famous woman lost a pregnancy. It may even be WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since even an abortion can be considered pregnancy loss to some and not to others and also, to some people, giving birth to a child who died soon after birth can be too.
    Also worth noting that we now know that women aren't the only ones who can get pregnant. Non-binary people can too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's have a look.
    • What does WP:TRIVIALCAT say? In general, if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic. I think that depends. I know women to whom a miscarriage was traumatising and life-changing, but I also know women to whom a miscarriage was kind of okay since the pregnancy was unplanned anyway. Furthermore, I know women who consciously opted to abort their pregnancy when the circumstances were not right to complete the pregnancy, and to some of them, it wasn't a big deal, while to others it was (even though they didn't regret it, as it was the best choice in the situation). Nevertheless, pretty much all these women only disclosed their experiences to me in a private setting, with a clear understanding that I should keep it a secret from others; they wish to control which people are allowed to know it, as they consider it a private and sensitive matter, even if in the end it wasn't a big deal to some of them. I think this wish should be respected.
    For our purposes here, I think this would call for a case-by-case assessment of what impact the person in question says in WP:RS that the pregnancy loss has had on their life. We shouldn't be labelling people to whom it wasn't that important, as this could needlessly stigmatise them. Especially in WP:BLPs, as pointed out in the previous discussion, we should be very careful not to categorise such people unless they come forward with their stories and explain it was very important in their lives.
    • I agree with you that the current catdesc is vague about whether it includes intentional abortions. The linked article pregnancy loss suggests it includes both intentional and unintentional cases. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a split of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
    • I agree that non-binary people can get pregnant and experience pregnancy loss as well. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a renaming of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
    NLeeuw (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, respectfully I wouldn't agree with any split or rename because I also think this category is WP:NONDEF in addition to being trivial and subjective. If its worth adding, the information about pregnancy loss should be added - which is to say written into - to the article of the person. Indeed, in most cases it matters, it is gone into detail. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. That seems to suggest you no longer support deletion, does it? NLeeuw (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, where did I suggest I no longer support deletion? I very much do. I merely stated that if a person has lost a pregnancy and it is important to their lives, that information should be incorportated into their article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah sorry, then I misunderstood what you said. I guess I can understand that argument. I'll wait to see what others have to say for now. Thanks for your clarifications so far. NLeeuw (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, no worries! Thanks for hearing me out as well! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the above, and last time. Simply not defining, plus except for a few high profile women, we usually just don't know about this aspect of lives. To judge by the category as it is, this virtually only seems to happen to European royalty and American actresses. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current contents might, of course, not be representative of humanity at all. But it is a good question who should and shouldn't be in here, if we are to have this category. NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is, and would be, who we have RS information for. That will only be a very small minority of our population of 397,000 women with biographies, reinforcing how non-defining it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow why a very small number of biographies falling into the category reinforces the argument that it is non-defining? That's true for many non-controversial categories. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is extremely common, and if it was defining we would have far more entries, even given the frequent lack of information. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't an easy question but having read through the extensive earlier discussion, I am persuaded that this category should be kept. It can be a WP:DEFINING event for some people based on reliable sources; if it isn't, then the category shouldn't be applied to the article (also bearing in mind WP:SENSITIVE). It seems to me correctly applied in the cases of (for example) Chrissy Teigen, Kathryn van Beek and Anne Boleyn. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocmilk03, WP:DEFINING means characteristics that person is notable for. I think you would agree that, while these women may have lost a pregnancy, they aren't defined by them nor are their lives characterised by losing pregnancies. The only serious exception is royalty for obvious reasons.
    Again, if its defining to their lives in any way, it should be added to the person's article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: In my view, the characteristic of having lost a pregnancy can contribute to notability, and is a defining event for some people. In the same way that we have categories for year of birth, where people attended high school, Category:People with Parkinson's disease, Category:American amputees, Category:People with polydactyly, etc, categories don't have to be the main thing that the person is notable for or the defining aspect of their life in order to be defining and useful for navigational purposes. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocmilk03, well you can make that argument but, at the same time, not everything is categorized. Not every medical condition is categorized, not every disability. Its why "People with infertility issues" (or something similar) is not categorized and why I feel this category should not be either. I've given my reasons for why above, not least of which is that losing pregnancy is something very common and, going back further, was a lot more common. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not go with the old Cfd's arguments. It really turned into a huge row which was not about debating whether the category was WP:OVERCAT or not (I think it is in many ways) but rather about people saying "what about this" and so on. I hope this Cfd will be more on actual policy than the previous one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please don't argue WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: My views are based on my own reading of the policies including WP:CATDEF, WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:COPDEF etc, not the previous CFD arguments. In my view, this category does meet the criteria of defining for some people (even though it is unlikely to be the sole reason for notability). "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic"; pregnancy loss meets this criteria for some people.
    I wasn't arguing that "other stuff exists"; those categories were simply examples to illustrate my point, in the same way you've used "People with infertility issues" as an example of why you feel this category should not exist.
    I've read your arguments (and those of others above) and respectfully disagree, hence my vote for 'keep'. I don't seek to persuade you of the correctness of my views, and understand you take a different view. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Chocmilk03's arguments somewhat persuasive, but not yet compelling. Let's see what others have to say. NLeeuw (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous discussion, as Marcocapelle linked above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read through the arguments in the previous discussion and what else has been written here. Fundamentally, something is defining if it's often (or could reasonably be) mentioned in the lead. For 99% of these pages, its not defining. I still think that the category should be deleted as it isn't defining. For the very few who it could be defining, they can be added to a list. At the very very very least, this category needs to be purged. Mason (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that clarification. Note to closer: Mason already !voted Support per nom above, so the word deleted in this comment shouldn't be counted. NLeeuw (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hinglaj Mata[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the category only contains a single image. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Hinglaj Mata Temple doesn't have any scope for a topic category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added relevant article pages to the category-the main temple and another a fort. Krayon95 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Hinglajgarh related to Hinglaj Mata Temple? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article itself, the fort is either named or developed after a temple of the said goddess. Krayon95 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the new situation, delete, the category contains two different sorts of buildings in entirely different places. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both places are temples of the same deity. Category could be useful for further temple articles of the deity. Krayon95 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already established that one article is about a fort. No objection to recreate the category when a handful of articles about Hinglay Mata temples have been written, but for the time being we even lack a stand alone Hinglaj Mata article. Also note that Hinglaj Mata Temple is already in Category:Durga temples which is properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the American Revolutionary War by state[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Category:Battles of the War of 1812 by state. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge this is simply another step in the path of destroying useful category information at the US state level. US state boundaries are in no way akin to the boundary problems found in some European countries, which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization of the Battles of the War of 1812. State boundaries have not generally changed since their formation, unlike the shifting boundaries of European geographic entities. Hmains (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully request that you WP:assume good faith, and base your opposition to the proposal on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than a personal POV of how things supposedly were in the past in North America compared to Europe so that WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN conveniently does not apply to categories you created. I am simply applying our polices and guidelines, confirmed by consensus established in precedents, and I would urge you to do the same. Have a good day. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about 'the past' involving the boundaries of the federal states of the United States. Unlike Europe of the past, the boundaries of these states are generally the same as when they were created over of last 200+ years. That means a battle that took place in a populated place of state x is still correctly stated as having been a battle in state x. I am not doing things in WP for my own convenience, whatever that may be. I am stating the facts. You have requested deletion of all these categories so I assume that is your intent--this does not involve 'faith' of any kind. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I did not mean to offend in any way if that is what happened. I am just here to edit. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no offence taken. I only took issue with the passage ...which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization.... This way of saying things implies that I am deliberately doing something wrong, and that what I am doing is harmful. The first bit is conduct that users should avoid: WP:Assume good faith means that we always assume that fellow editors are trying to do the right thing, even if they make mistakes. (And I do make plenty of mistakes, and I'll happily be corrected if you can point out what I should have done instead). The last bit may be your opinion, but it is rather strongly worded; it's better not to use words such as "destruction" when it comes to reorganising category trees in a way you don't like. Hopefully that clears things up?
My intention is to upmerge rather than outright delete these categories. Even though deletion is the result, the contents of the former categories will be preserved in their parent categories, and the logbooks will note which categories were merged into which. E.g. battles in New York state will still be in Category:Military history of New York (state), where readers and editors alike can still find them. This upmerging is based on WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, a guideline which has existed since about 2007. If you think there is something wrong with that guideline, you are free to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history. Making arguments here at CFD for why this guideline should not apply to the United States, however, is not very helpful.
Besides, practically speaking, the main article List of American Revolutionary War battles already mentions the state in which each battle took place. This is one single page for all you want readers to know about the location of these battles, right? NLeeuw (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, per guideline. In the nomination the articles are kept at a state level, there is no destroyal taking place. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    destruction*. Otherwise I agree. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the larger categories and merge the ones with very few members per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:DIFFUSE. Merging the larger categories would make the category tree less useful for readers. The nom may prefer the list to the categories, but lists and categories can coexist without conflict. - Eureka Lott 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should explain that I have only noted how many P and C there are in each of them as a secondary argument, but according to WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN (the primary argument), it doesn't matter what size the category is, as all such "battles in X" categories are considered inappropriate. (Even if we were to keep the "large" ones, which categories would you consider "large" and which ones "small"?)
    My remark that the list already mentions the locations anyway is intended to address the concern of Hmains, the creator of these categories, that valuable information or overview might be lost if the proposal receives approval, because the list covers it. Personally, I'm not sure if it is necessary to mention the locations in any list or category, but keeping them in the list while upmering the categories seems an acceptable compromise to me.
    I hope this may help to understand the rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem that WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN attempts to address—issues arising when modern and historical names differ—is largely irrelevant here. The boundaries of South Carolina, for instance, are the same now as they were during this conflict. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of states, provinces and especially territories didn't have their modern boundaries yet. More importantly, WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't apply in some places, but not in others. It's a universal rule, it should be applied everywhere. If someone thinks there should be exceptions to the rule, they're free to start the process of seeking to amend it. But until it is amended, we should apply the guideline as it is, and not engage in special pleading.
    Given the many recent precedents in both the category space and the article space, there is a running consensus to phase out "battles in Fooland" categories and articles. NLeeuw (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MILMOS is a style manual. Despite your protestations, it doesn't automatically override our categorization guidelines. You're veering into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory with these assertions. - Eureka Lott 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substitution tracking templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unclear if this is used anymore by any template as it isn't found in an "insource" search. If still used the category description should be updated with where this is used from. Gonnym (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players from Ames, Iowa[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only two articles. No object to recreation if there are more articles to be added. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proto-Mongols[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the category only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. That is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mongol states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, it is unclear how the categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DVD interactive technology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: More common name, I don't hear "DVD interactive technology" as often. Also, the original name omits the usage of "games". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, Nuon (DVD technology) should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many games come on DVD, so this proposed title is too vague to ever work. Honestly I'd just say Delete unless the nominator can articulate what makes these games special. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings and structures in the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
We have plenty of objective categories for historic buildings like Category:National Register of Historic Places, Category:Historic Hotels of America, and Category:Oakland Designated Landmarks. This category is different because, in my subjective opinion, the Citigroup Center is not historic but, in the subjective opinion of another editor, it is. That's really all it takes to add an article to this tree! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: Not many full merges are necessary because I went through all the individual articles to make sure none of them would be orphaned; however, a number of subcategories would need to be selectively reparented to stay in their category tree. If this nomination passes I'll have a follow up one for the sibling categories which have different heritage register situations. An earlier nomination in 2018 ended in "no consensus" with the following participants: @Marcocapelle, SportingFlyer, Thincat, Black Falcon, and Good Olfactory:. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, subjective qualification for a building if it is not listed on a heritage register. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice 2[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Category:Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice to the Kingdom of Sardinia. WP:MFN. There are many, many underpopulated (1 to 4 P) ambassador cats like this. Recommend future follow-ups for Category:Ambassadors of Aragon, Category:Ambassadors of North Yemen, Category:Ambassadors of the Duchy of Milan, amongst others. NLeeuw (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"