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_January_16


January 16

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Nintendo Switch 2

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. Should be recreated later in 2025, after the console and some games have been released. Sebbog13 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON for a category to exist. --woodensuperman 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State of the Union addresses by President

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. These categories largely overlap with the merge targets. Most US presidents only gave a handful of State of the Union addresses and there is no benefit to splitting them off. User:Namiba 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the creator. Truthfully I created those categories a while ago when I did not read the aforementioned guidelines, and I now think they are not necessary. Therefore I think Category:State of the Union addresses by President should be deleted since its only purpose is to regroup the categories nominated for merging here (I don't think it would be a good idea for me to do this procedure myself since I do not contribute on EN-wiki on a regular basis). Bloc186 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lithuanian drag queens

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains a single redirect, to an actor who played a drag queen. --woodensuperman 15:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drag Race (franchise) Miss Congeniality winners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING per WP:OCAWARD. They did not win the series. --woodensuperman 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sir Edwin Cooper

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University Challenge announcers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 09:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is borderline WP:PERFCAT as it is, splitting by season definitely makes this more of a WP:PERFCAT issue. If we have to break this down by show, we should not be splitting by season also, whichever specific season they may or may not have appeared in is not WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice that a lot of other drag TV shows have been subjected to the same inappropriate split just a couple of weeks ago, we do not do this for other reality TV shows, no need to do this here. Once this is resolved, we need to apply the same logic to other shows in the Category:Reality drag competition contestants tree. --woodensuperman 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as creator. A few points. It is quite common for references about the queens to not just refer to them as "RuPauls's Drag Race contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache", but rather "RuPauls's Drag Race Season 11 contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache". They represent diffusing* categories to a category with over 200 Queens in it and which allows for these subcats to become part of the cat for each season. The situation with RPDR is that unlike (say) "Who wants to be a millionaire?" or Survivor is that almost all queens in the shows, *as a result of the show* now meet notability criteria. (I honestly don't think we have any other tv show with that number of people who become notable *due* to the show.)Silky Nutmeg Ganache the remainder of her career is specifically identified by the characteristic of her category, as opposed to say the contestants on Celebrity Apprentice.*A few queens due to having to exit early were invited back for the next season.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still no justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, as we are doing here (although, personally I don't see why, when a lot of these people are famous for more than the one TV series these days, and I'd ideally like to upmerge all of these to Category:Reality drag competition contestants), but splitting by season is a step too far as per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic. Splitting this further actually hinders navigation, as you would need to know which season someone was a contestant in order to navigate between the queens. Peversely, it would actually make more sense to break down the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}} by season, rather than the categories, as you would be able to view all the contestants at once. Also, 200 entries in a category isn't catastrophic, when you consider Category:21st-century American male actors has over 6,000 entries. --woodensuperman 14:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PDE theorists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Set theorists by nationality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The top-level category is not currently too big. If it gets too big, it would be better to divide by field of study. Nationality is not a very relevant property of mathematicians, and some of the most tedious and unproductive discussions on mathematician bios have been over which nationality gets to claim them. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Side note: These cats are recent creations, just a day or two ago. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Many of the bigger subcategories of Category:Mathematicians by field are subdivided by nationality, and this can be parallel to a subcategrization by subfield. According to WP:PETSCAN, there are 112 items in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wish they weren't, to be honest. Do we have to repeat the mistake here just because it's made in other fields? (Also, I'm particularly leery of this one because of Georg Cantor and Kurt Gödel, both of whom have been subject to these distasteful nationalistic claim-warrings.)
Alternatively, where would be a good venue to discuss whether this sort of subcat is a good idea in general? --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my specific concern is mathematics, so if it's to be a WikiProject I would think it would be WT:WPM, but it's true that the natural sciences probably have similar dynamics (not much relevance to the work; lots of contributors with ambiguous or complicated nationality). Maybe it's a Village Pump issue? Anyway I'll notify WP Math (neutrally) about the instant discussion; maybe someone will have ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on refugees

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I stumbled on this category when I stumbled on the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert), and I saw a tangent about this category. While it is true that many people on Wikipedia are widely considered as experts in their subject, there are only three categories named "Experts on...": those are for terrorism, North Korea and refugees. Other categories on specialism would be like Category:Psephologists (not "experts on elections") or Category:Seismologists (not "experts on earthquakes") I looked at the articles in this category, and there is a mixture of activists and academics. Both of these can be problematic when we have a category on expertise. If the category was named "pro-refugee activists", that seems better to me, because it is about their position, rather than expertise. If a pro-refugee activist is not academically qualified, I feel that opens the way to having anti-refugee activists also having to be in the category of "experts", as both will be known for activism on the subject, and both will have no academic credentials to prove it. When it comes to academics, obviously they do not pin their colours to the mast quite like activists, but there are also highly qualified people who are known for writings that criticise migration and asylum. Those would fall under the banner of "experts on refugees", and would probably lead to edit wars on exactly who qualifies as an expert. TLDR: Category mixes activists and academics. Should they be separated? Category is based on expertise, which is subjective. In the case of unqualified activists, the category could also be applied to anti-refugee activists, as the category only mentions unquantifiable "expertise", not position. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agents-General for Australian states

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Decapitalise General as per MOS:JOBTITLES. Change "for" to "of" for consistency with other categories such as Category:Attorneys-general of Australian states and territories or Category:Treasurers of Australian states and territories Steelkamp (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is agreement that the second g in agents-general should be lowercase, but which preposition should the title use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion needed on the preposition, but clear consensus for decapitalization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hazardous air pollutants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming analogous to Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention. Other renamings were considered (albeit not advocated for: "I can't think of a way to rename the category to make it make sense. (Regulated Hazardous air pollutants)?? (USEPA Hazardous air pollutants)??") on the talk page all the way back in 2007. Preimage (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @A876 (original talk page poster) in case you want to weigh in here. Preimage (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Not seeing opposition to the rename if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen mothers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: (selectively) merge, unnecessary indiscriminate specification of mothers of monarchs: probably more than half of the queens consort outlive their king husband. The title "queen mother" may suggest they had a lot of influence on politics but that varied from case to case. And not all queen mothers even have this title explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, at least for the ones where nom's second assertion is not true. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BD2412 seems to imply purging; is this an acceptable alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern Democrats

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a meaningless category which encompasses politicians from across the political spectrum: it includes segregationists and civil rights activists, neoliberals and social democrats. User:Namiba 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This category represents politicians apart of a Factions in the Democratic Party (United States); similar e.g. Bourbon Democrats, Factions in the Democratic Party (United States), Lunch pail Democrat. They are also associated by shared location. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is Stacey Abrams is Southern Democrat in the faction sense? What does she have in common with Theodore G. Bilbo except being in the same party and from the same region?--User:Namiba 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't unusual for a region's ideology to shift over time. At most points in time however, Southern Democrats have been distinct from Democrats in other regions. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a young adult (1970's), if Wikipedia had been around, I would certainly have considered "Southern Democrat" to be a defining characteristic. 'Twas a simpler time, perhaps. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in this category redirect to the same page. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of ballet casts

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one page, a redirect, so it doesn't seem very useful for navigation. I also don't see any other articles that could be added to populate the category (seems like a very rare type of article/list). Felida97 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hınıs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitaker iron family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We have been standardizing families that require occupational disambiguation to put the occupation in parentheses at the back. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category and the article for the family, per nominator. - Sebbog13 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"