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_November_7


November 7

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Rutulian male boxers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Set of one-entry categories for a not-inherently notable intersection of characteristics. Rutuls are an ethnic group who live in Dagestan or Azerbaijan, not a "nationality" in their own right, but these were all created as nationality categories and had to be moved out of incorrect "X by nationality" parents -- but "ethnicity intersected with occupation" categories are not automatically created for every possible combination of those traits that describes just one person, so these aren't warranted until there are a lot more than just one person to file in each of them.
The existing Category:Rutul people (which also won't be large enough to need diffusion even with these people moved into it) is all that's required in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Was opposed at speedy by @Altenmann: by the creator, in spite of the fact that there is no other category in Category:20th-century Russian people by occupation that uses the Russian Empire naming convention SMasonGarrison 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People charged with crimes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category's existence seems like a pretty blatant WP:BLPCRIME violation. We should not associate or categorize people with crimes unless they are convicted and it's a major point of notability for them. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the nom... I noticed this category from Category:People criminally charged for acts during the January 6 United States Capitol attack which is fairly dubious considering the existence of Category:Convicted participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Also note that the latter category (Suspected criminals) was discussed 7 years ago with no consensus. Reconrabbit 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under ths category is Category:People by criminal charge with a whole tree of sub-subcategories so the biographies are getting categorized this way beyond the scope of this nomination. We could certainly "containerize" this category for now but I don't think just deleting this parent cat would have the intended effect. (Alternatively, the nomination could be expanded.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional planets by work

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two categories in here now, making it fairly small. I posit that these two subcategories should be merged into Fictional planets, at least until way more exist (if ever). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures by decade of destruction

[edit]
a bunch more years
a bunch more decades
a bunch more centuries
a bunch more sports venues
Nominator's rationale: Following up from [[1]], we've completely messed this up, and we need to revert it. I only saw this due to my watch list and asked the closer about it, who told me to file a new CSD.

First "Demolish" means to "to completely destroy a building, especially in order to use the land for something else," meaning that it does encompass buildings which are destroyed non-voluntarily, whereas "destroy" means to "damage beyond use." It's pedantic, but the "completely" is important here. Secondly, a "destroyed" building in usage typically means a building that was rendered useless due to some sort of external factor. A quick search shows "destroyed in fire", discussion of building collapses, or discussion about the process of demolition. There's a reason building infoboxes uses "demolished" for date instead of "destroyed..." - it is a far more precise term.

Furthermore buildings can be either demolished, destroyed, or both. As an example, the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch was destroyed in 2011 by the earthquake, but not demolished until 2012. A castle may have been destroyed in one century and the ruins demolished in another century. A building completely destroyed by fire or bombed would not have been demolished, whereas a voluntarily demolished building was not destroyed.

I do agree with renaming the top level category, but I've categorised a lot of these, and I believe we desperately need to restore these categories for buildings which were voluntarily demolished, for the same reason we have separate categories for collapsed buildings. Destroyed buildings should have their own separate category structure. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question The last discussion was closed earlier today, so I'm not sure if a consensus is likely to be reversed so soon. Is there a broader term that more clearly conveys the intent of including both the deliberate and unintentional end to buildings? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer recommended another CfD, I think in part because we'd have to un-do all of these. (Interestingly, I was only pinged after I opened this discussion - I would have strongly opposed the change in the other discussion.) We had separate categories by year for both demolished buildings and collapsed buildings, so essentially my proposal is to revert this back to demolished, which definitionally encompasses destroyed, and is a more precise term. The next step would be to create a separate structure for burned/bombed buildings by year/decade/et cetera.
    The category is in desperate need of organisation, reverting would be the first step. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain the reason why I opened the previous nomination for renaming. On Wikipedia there were no other categories by year/decade/century to display buildings that ceased to exist. The only common root we have is Category:Former buildings and structures with no split by dates. So I assumed that these categories were freely populated. I checked the cases where the infobox said 'Destroyed' (given that you can specify both the destruction and the demolition date), but the article was placed in the "Demolished by year" category. And I found pretty enough cases, for example Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) or see this restricted search. I've also checked 1942-1944 categories and found some buildings that were destroyed during WWII, but were demolished years later, but the article was still categorised by the destruction date, such as Lafayette transmitter. Or St. Florian's Cathedral that was destroyed in 1944, but not demolished, and still placed in the category. I also said at the time that the root category had the description 'deliberately demolished' at the top, which had been there from the start of the category in 2006. So I concluded that this was not being followed and that these categories were being filled in freely, being just the opposite of the date of construction of the buildings. I still think it is better to leave them as they are now. And I'm not sure it's worth categorising by both the date of destruction and the date of demolition at the same time (due to WP:OVERCAT), because the moment when a building burns down or is destroyed seems to be more relevant to the encyclopaedia than the moment when its site was formally cleared and emptied by administrative authorities. Solidest (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Christchurch, NZ is a great example - the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch was destroyed (rendered beyond repair) in 2011, but demolished in 2012. We currently have it as "destroyed in 2012." You are also incorrect, there are separate category structures for different types of buildings ceasing to exist - see Category:Building and structure collapses by year as a separate directory structure. These buildings were "destroyed" but not "demolished." I agree with you - "destroyed" could be spun out from "demolished," but as I've said before "demolished" DOES definitionally encompass "destroyed." I also don't see any issue with Lafayette transmitter, as the final demolition date was 1953. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lafayette transmitter was destroyed in 1953, but people put the 1944 category by the date of destruction, that's the problem. My whole post above is about people putting burned/destroyed/collapsed/demolished dates into these categories without giving meaning to the type of destruction. I'd probably agree that "destroyed" isn't the perfect word to cover all these cases either, but the categories obviously don't just include demolished buildings. Somewhere you corrected the demolition dates, but many other people, like in my examples above, put random destruction cases in there. "Collapses" also doesn't fit here as a generalised term, as it's more about buildings falling down on their own. Solidest (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprisingly it turns out that it was you yourself who put in the Lafayette transmitter the date of the destruction instead of the demolition a year ago which only emphasises the problem with these categories, as this is far from being an individual incident. Solidest (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising. I've categorised a lot of these, and the sources specify that the station as "destroyed" in 1944 but the "final pylon" was demolished in 1953. (There's a chance that article wouldn't survive an AfD, either.) The Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) was demolished, the infobox needs to be updated. Infobox building has two options: demolition_date, the "Date building was demolished"; and destruction_date, the "Date building was destroyed, generally by a natural event or war." These are separate. Just because users sometimes aren't accurate isn't a reason to make an entire category structure less accurate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well when you have a choice between demolished or collapsed for cases like World War II or for natural disasters or other incidents, it's not the inaccuracy of people, it's the lack of choice for almost 20 years that causes the category to lose meaning from the original according to its content. Solidest (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this remains as an all-encompassing category, "demolished" is still a much better definitional descriptor than "destroyed" as I've pointed out previously. I still maintain the correct thing to do, similar to the info box, is to split this out, but that would require reversion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend back Sorry but the original change from Demolition to Destruction is just nonsense. They are clearly two different meanings. Demolition is when a building is purposefully taken down either due to structural failure or building something else on the site. You would not say that Wembley Stadium was destroyed in 2003 to make way for the new Webley Stadium. Destruction is when something is deliberately destroyed by humanity or is destroyed by an act of nature. Therefore the original closure to destroyed is just silly and inaccurate use of the English Language (no matter what side of the pond you are on).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EastEnders locations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION that includes only one real article, and a redirect to that same article. Jontesta (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:EastEnders - At least move the one actual article over. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Gwynedd

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Gwynedd.

Sole remaining subcategory of the Restaurants in Wales tree, contains only two articles one of which is a "self-catering holiday home". AusLondonder (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic bishops in Nigeria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories seem to cover the same subject Isoceles-sai (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe in practice they do. But in theory Category:Nigerian Roman Catholic bishops should contain people with Nigerian nationality who are stationed abroad. This is a global issue, not just for Nigeria, therefore procedurally oppose, there should be a broader discussion. Substantively one might argue that, for bishops abroad, the intersection between nationality and occupation is rather trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepal Premier League teams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, as of the 3 articles in there, 1 has previously been deleted and re-created, and the other are at WP:AFD right now. Thus, there are no useful articles for this category, as the team articles are either being deleted or redirected to the main Nepal Premier League article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peplum films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: They basically deal with the same genre, the Sword-and-sandal, which in fact is the main page for both categories, and which says The terms "peplum" and "sword-and-sandal" were used in a condescending way by film critics. Peplum film is currently a redirect to Sword-and-sandal. Cavarrone 09:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Speaking as a connoisseur of cult films, and the terms "peplum" and "sword-and-sandal" are effectively interchangeable in modern film use, rendering the category completely redundant. Carguychris (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have received a AfC welcome message

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: grammar –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics film characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category's description is for "Film characters based on Marvel Comics", although in recent months, it has become populated by an absurd amount of articles for the comic characters themselves, with many of those being for characters only RECENTLY being featured in some mass media. This cat has primarily operated as a holding for the three current subcats which are actually for film adaptations of these characters. This cat is repeatedly readded to articles on the comics versions and I am requesting full deletion as the current subcats handle all relevant media adaptations in film, or, if that does not pass, then I would request this cat to be purged and converted into a formal holding cat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: I would also like to note that the creator of this cat, User:Dietic, has a history of making similar categories as this one for Marvel adaptation characters that were overcategorized on the comics articles and were subsequently deleted in the past few years, many of which may be viewed via their talk page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shompen language

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only subcategory is Category:Linguists of Shompen, which has been nominated for deletion. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguists of Shompen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The Shompen language is hardly even documented, so it is not possible to be a linguist specializing in Shompen. Blench and Sidwell, the only two linguists in the category, only wrote brief papers speculating on the classification of Shompen based on some earlier poorly presented materials. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle royale

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Considering its disparate parents Category:Combat sports and Category:Fiction about death games, it's unclear what the scope of this category is supposed to be, and seems like a case of unrelated subjects with shared names. Since most of the content is about the fiction genre, suggesting to purge Category:Professional wrestling battle royales to Category:Combat sports and rename the remaining category to Category:Battle royale genre, per the relevant section linked to from Battle royale genre. Paul_012 (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Brazil

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Does not have use for navigation, all sub cats have 1-2 articles. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christianity in Sussex

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Most content is at the level of East Sussex and West Sussex, so these are not currently helpful for navigation. Leave redirects to discourage re-creation. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft with counter-rotating propellers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are many, many relevant ways to categorize aircraft. This is not one of them. The "handedness" of an aircraft's propellers is, in the vast majority of cases, not a defining trait of an aircraft, for many older types it may be difficult or impossible to determine, and some aircraft types had some variants with "handed" (counter-rotating) propellers, and others without. In short, this isn't something that is defining for an aircraft type, and should not be categorized accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Myroslav Skoryk

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories with the one "compositions by" subcategories, which contains all related articles to the eponymous subjects, thus this becomes a redundant layer of categorization/navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not help navigation. All articles are already in basketball venues category so a dual merge is not needed. User:Namiba 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment Since it was relisted in order to clarify deletion vs. merge, I don't think this is defining at all, rather than just being a problem with the subcategory, so I'd favor deletion. (A merge would still be preferable to no action though.) @Marcocapelle and Namiba: Note the relisting comment for which your input is appreciated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of an established directory structure for college teams which play in venues and I believe the fact that the team plays there is defining, considering at least one of the venues has them as a primary tenant. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I am going to nominate all the Fooian sportspeople of Bar descent cats in due course after all the British ones were upmerged, seems no difference between them and other countries. This one is a level deeper, to a specific sport, and is not defining in any way for either the individuals or their heritage as significant to their sport careers. Crowsus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"