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_April_5


April 5

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Kadokawa Dwango

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As of 2019, the company has simply rebranded back to Kadokawa.VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Kadokawa Dwango; if there are no further comments we are all set to merge :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guangzhou-geo-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only three transclusions, none of which link to mainspace articles. OpalYosutebito (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; created in 2012 and never used, apparently. Her Pegship (?) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your Pegship this one was db-author'd in 2012, then recreated by yourself in 2023! Redirect to {{Guangzhou-stub}}? – Fayenatic London 23:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(slaps self with trout) Oy vey. Yes, that sounds reasonable. Her Pegship (?) 02:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Fayenatic London's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kadokawa Daiei Studio films

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The films produced and/or distributed by Kadokawa as a whole are currently credited simply under the Kadokawa name, the Kadokawa Daiei Studio company mainly controls the studio facilities for Kadokawa's film and TV production divisions. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category. If there are no further comments in a week, we are all set to rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery of Native Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barbadian jazz musicians by instrument

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 00:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also merge Category:Barbadian jazz trumpeters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with tile-based graphics

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Months ago, I removed all pages from Category:Tile-based video games even though the two categories clearly were meant to have two distinct purposes, not the same. Consider using the Wayback Machine to see what I removed from Category:Tile-based video games, and what used to be in this category (tile based vg category was supposed to be for video games that simulate the table games of the same type, I think) Also, I kind of hard to understand what exactly you mean by "Tile-based graphics". IN FACT this category's looks like a mess of different things that are not related. Anyway, the whole tile-based games thing isn't really defining in the end because it could refer to so many different things, wouldn't Plants vs. Zombies count as one? Nothing special. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing objections to deletion. If you do object, please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Alaska Natives

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: my instinct was speedy via parent is Alaska Native people; but 21st-century Native Americans is the other parent SMasonGarrison 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename We name categories by ethnicity or nationality as "X people", and the Native American ones should be renamed as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary birds

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories nest into each other, but have no clear distinction. Mythological is more inline with other similar categories such as Category:Mythological mammals. But there are other categories that confuse the Legendary/Mythical distinction. There are a lot of other similar examples, but I'm not very experienced with this and wanted to start small. RaidRexx (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I understand it is that mythological refers to an (extinct) religion. There is Greek mythology, Germanic mythology, Indian mythology, all revolving around deities and spirits and their interaction witb human people. Legendary is non-religious. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my most preliminary amateur research, the broadest term would be Folklore as both Myth and Legend pages list them as genres of folklore. Related to your statement the wikis for myth and legend say:
    --Myths consist primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, often endorsed by religious and secular authorities.
    --Legends consist of a narrative featuring human actions, believed or perceived to have taken place in human history, distinguished from myths in that they concern human beings as the main characters and do not necessarily have supernatural origins, and sometimes in that they have some sort of historical basis whereas myths generally do not.
    Ultimately I don't think the distinction between these three would serve any practical purpose for the sake of categories as its such a blurry undefined line and maintaining clean distinctions between the two would be too tedious. I feel like the most concise option would Folkloric birds, but that's not as common a term as myth or legend. The most inclusive and easily understood would by Mythological, legendary, and folkloric birds, but that becomes too wordy and unwieldly. Finally Category: Birds in mythology is a separate even broader scope category, and wouldn't serve the same purpose the current categories. RaidRexx (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion linked by Marcocapelle was closed as "rename to Category:Mythological corvids".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (unfortunately) that Mythological, legendary, and folkloric birds is an option. It would be better to have a simpler term that encompasses all of those, which also leaves open the creation of three subcategories if there was ever a need for any of them. Mythological could be ok, but some might think we were saying that legends and folklore are subsumed in myth, which they're not. This problem must come up in several areas, including the one Marcocapelle linked to, so a consistent solution would be good. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support merging either way, however I'm personally not sure whether "Legendary" or "Mythological" would be better for the final category name. Also, something should be done about the Legendary/Mythological mammals categories too. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Instead of writing the same paragraphs (again) about the issues concerning creatures of fiction, folklore, legend, and myth, I'll just say that I think we should probably have an overall discussion about legendary and mythological creatures (and persons and entities). I think this is a case where doing piecemeal noms doesn't work. - jc37 22:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from. There should probably be a discussion about folkloric/legendary/mythological characters and creatures as a whole, and consolidating all of these redundant subcategories together. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this has been open so long, and both categories have apparently been tagged, here's what I would support: Keep Category:Legendary birds, and Merge Category:Mythological birds to Category:Birds in mythology. I would not oppose Merging both to Category:Legendary birds in mythology. Whatever the result, I think pruning may be appropriate. I still think we should talk about the trees, but I guess we can start here. Please relist to see if we can find a consensus. - jc37 20:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's most recent suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century German etchers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 00:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to Fram's and Aidan's points?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian film critics associations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated categories, that I couldn't populate SMasonGarrison 03:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: MOS:SUFFIXDASH says "Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen". That guideline therefore requires two dashes in the adjective "Azuchi–Momoyama–period". But IMHO the parent looks fine with a dash and a hyphen. We have a precedent to vary SUFFIXDASH for categories where "-related lists" follows a compound name, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_20#MOS:SUFFIXDASH_moves. I think we should follow that precedent for categories ending "-period Japan", i.e. keep the hyphen rather than use a dash there. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notice of this discussion has been posted at WT:MOS#SUFFIXDASH and categories. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing 2&3, and 1 is wrong - I think the nominator has made an error. While it is true that MOS tells us "Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen", it does not apply to categories. That same subsection also tells us "the principle is not extended when compounding other words in category names, e.g., Category:Tennis-related lists and Category:Table tennis-related lists both use hyphens." MOS also tells us that "The form of category names follows the corresponding main articles." So category names should always correspond to main articles, and then follow normal English rules. Based on MOS the "Azuchi–Momoyama period" is what we should be using per WikiMOS and precedent. Categories are not handled the same as standard prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fyunck(click): Sorry, I don't understand. If 1 is wrong, what do you think it should be – Category:Azuchi–Momoyama period people? Having a space before "period" would not match siblings for people of other eras within its parent Category:Japanese people by period. You seem to be opposing all hyphens before "period" in category names. To take a shorter example, "Edo period" is a noun, but within the phrase "Edo-period Japan" the words "Edo-period" are hyphenated because they are a compound adjective. That is a normal English rule. So Category:Edo period has no hyphen, as "Edo" is the adjective specifying the period; but in Category:Edo-period sites, "Edo-period" is the compound adjective specifying the sites. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fayenatic london: Per our own MOS, categories match our articles. The article is Azuchi–Momoyama period so why are we adding a hyphen at all? Are you saying that more precisely defining it by adding Japan we have to add a hyphen? That period is only in Japan. If anything it would be be "Azuchi–Momoyama period, Japan"... or "Azuchi–Momoyama period in Japan." Perhaps even more appropriately "Japanese Azuchi–Momoyama period." But I didn't write the Wiki MOS on this situation. It says categories follow the article title. And when I search with Google I find this and this and this where no one hyphens "period". We have several of these category errors that get fixed from time to time. I see them and usually ignore them as not being worth the bother of change... sort of if it aint broke don't fix it. But here we have someone trying to change things from good to bad it seems to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with both. The category name as it stands deserves a dash, this is a plain grammar issue. Fyunck is arguing for a different format of the name, which is very reasonable too, but that would apply to the whole category tree. So I think the latter should be dealt with in a separate group nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Fayenatic london's most recent suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ping previous participants to see if they are okay with FL's proposal. Thoughts on what to do with Category:Azuchi–Momoyama period Buddhist clergy would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebrew-language names

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It looks like there is something multiwrong with this category.
Done with subcats.
Final suggestion: What's in a Name?
  • Support. Articles about Hebrew-language names are of course ok to have in this category, but articles about any other Jewish topics are not. The fact that an article or subcategory has a Hebrew-language name is not relevant. We are categorizing content, not page names. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which of the options should we go with?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorials to Rosa Parks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Monuments and memorials to American women --Another Believer (Talk) 03:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kokborok-language film stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two articles in this category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? I will tag the template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OpalYosutebito: pinging for your thoughts. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds alright to me. I was initially considering merging, but so far your reasoning has somewhat changed my mind... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorials to Harriet Tubman

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Monuments and memorials to American women --Another Believer (Talk) 03:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorials to Diana, Princess of Wales

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Monuments and memorials to British women --Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Māori and Pacific Island scientists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think that this should be renamed per c2c New Zealand Māori people by occupation, but I'm not sure that it's clear cut. SMasonGarrison 01:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename? Split? Something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of political office-holders by province or territory in Canada

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Use "of" rather than "in", per Category:Categories by province or territory of Canada. I could have taken this to Speedy, but maybe someone has a better name. Note: the contents are not all holders of provincial offices, as they include subcats for mayors of places within the provinces. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"