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/2025_February_8


February 8

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Fictional people from Haywards Heath

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Haywards Heath and (maybe) Category:Fictional English people. Only one entry - which is about a series of books rather than a fictional person), and seems unlikely to ever be expandable. The only towns or cities in England with categories of this sort are London (popn. 8 million), Liverpool (500,000), Manchester (600,000), Newcastle-upon-Tyne (300,000), and this one (30,000). Grutness...wha? 09:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Independence Day Award

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: more specific Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 08:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American mathematicians by populated place

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not everyone living and working in the United States is "American". This is a category for sorting people by where they live and are practicing a particular occupation; not a category for designating citizenship or nationality. We shouldn't confuse the two. I am not sure how to do a bundled nom, but I would nominate all of the cats at Category:American people by occupation and populated place and Category:People by nationality and occupation and populated place to mirror this change because when you get down to the small cats like Category:Actors from New York City; it could have many people who aren't "American" in that cat but who are working actors who live in NYC. I don't think we can or should make this category tree nationality/citizenship dependent because where someone lives and works is not necessarily tied to either of those two criteria. 4meter4 (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate subcategories for upmerging, they are a trivial intersection between occupation and place of birth. Oppose the current nomination but merely for consistency reasons. I'd be ok with renaming all nationality categories to country categories. Nationality is a modern concept that we also anachronistically apply to periods in history when the concept did not exist yet. And even in modern times, the country where one lives is more relevant than the passport one has. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree that the people in these cats are there because of “birth”. At least when I apply these cats I try to place them based on where someone was doing their job (although I am sure I have used it the other way too before thinking about this issue more recently). For example a doctor born in California but working at NYU should be categorized in Doctors from New York City because that is where that are practicing medicine. That would seem clear and defining. Misuse of cats is not a valid reason to remove a category. Granted we could probably do a better job communicating how to use the category tree with an explanatory note on each cat page in this tree to encourage people to place cats differently in this area by discouraging people to use place of birth in the occupation by location cats and sort by where they actually were working/employed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently we agree on this matter. But at the same time the people by populated place categories are polluted by birth-only assignment to such an extent that they better be blown up and started over again. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dancers by populated place in New York (state)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overly redundant category layers. Large tree structure for one subcategory. Not useful for navigation in any manner. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New towns by decade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate establishments category for planned communities/new towns. For consistency, merge to the populated places tree, diffusing by year where applicable. WP:OVERLAPCAT –Aidan721 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If kept, rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magical superheroes / supervillains

[edit]

To start off with, just as in professional wrestling, a hero can do a face turn to a villain/"heel" (and vice-versa). So splitting these is subjective WP:OR.

Besides that, all of the category members are comics characters, which should already be in Category:Comics characters who use magic or one of its subcats. Most of these will end up in the DC or Marvel subcats. - jc37 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

eponymous Massachusetts categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I can't believe these got opposed at speedy, but here we are... All the nominated categories contain a single eponymous article of the same name and were recently created by a single user. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • @MetricHistory and TSventon: pinging participants from the speedy discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all No need for a "consistency" of skeletons containing nothing. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, it is not helpful at all that you need to go into a category in order to read the only article of that category. After the merge you can read the article instantly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Alford and Avon, Keep the Blandford, Bernardston, and Bellingham categories as they've been sufficiently populated.--User:Namiba 16:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep all Avon has subsequently also been populated. It appears that other users are actually using the categories as intended, which was actually the point of creating them in the first place. If you build it, they will come. As of this message, only Alford remains populated with a single article. It is only a matter of time before it, too becomes populated. MetricHistory (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Alford could benefit from a subcat Category:People from Alford, Massachusetts of which there would be at least two obvious members: Carolyn Gold Heilbrun and John W. Hulbert. Given that the objection was raised to me, I will refrain from creating this subcat myself, as long as the objection holds. However, if the objection had not been raised, I would have created it in due time as I continued my project. It appears that the main basis of objection was that the project was not yet complete, yet others appear to be completing it for me. MetricHistory (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all except for Alford, Massachusetts. There are sub categories in each of the other towns as well as articles. There is a reasonable expectation of future articles being added to some of these.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, there is a subcat intended for Alford, as well, and I do believe there is a "reasonable expectation of future articles" as well. The main objection, as I understand it, was that my work was not finished, so the objector raised his issue before the work could be completed, thus creating an odd self-fulfilling prophecy. It must be remembered that complex projects take time to complete and that a work in progress is not the final result. MetricHistory (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A straightforward merge as nominated can no longer be done, but still this is little content for tiny places and all of this can better be categorized at county level. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The plan is to have all of the municipalities as subcats of their respective counties. For all practical purposes, county government no longer exists in Massachusetts, and they exist only as geographical and historical units. Yes, some towns may be quite small, but there is still a very practical purpose for having a top-level cat for each of the 351 municipalities. What does not make sense is to have cats for only a selected subset of municipalities. There should be no need for a secret decoder bracelet for which municipalities do and do not exist as top-level cats. Remember, each of these cats do not exist in isolation. They exist as part of a larger whole. MetricHistory (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, my position is Keep all, including Alford, Massachusetts. I fully intend to "fix" Alford as soon as the ban on my editing it is lifted, which would bring it into compliance. Again, the main objection seems to have been that I had not completed my work, therefore I should be prohibited from completing it because it was incomplete. That would be absurd. The objection was prematurely made on a work in progress. MetricHistory (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus that WP:C2F should apply in this case, and maybe some which are also underpopulated should also be upmerged. I will reping all participants to ask for their updated thoughts know that not all categories fit the criteria for C2F.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MetricHistory, Marcocapelle, and 4meter4: You already expressed an updated opinion; pinging you for completeness. @Aidan721, Pppery, TSventon, and Namiba: Thoughts on the above? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that every city/town must have a corresponding WP category because of one user's intentions is ridiculous and goes against years of consensus at WP. I'm OK with keeping the first 4 categories since Namiba has done the work of populating with content. However, there is no reason to keep Category:Alford, Massachusetts given it includes only the eponymous article. Categories like these are only useful when there is plenty of content to navigate between. Otherwise, the county of higher subdivision level is a better category. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"