WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

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

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.
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.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
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.
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
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.
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).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_November_14

November 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:General elections by country

Propose renaming Category:General elections by country to Category:Parliamentary elections by country

Nominator's rationale: This category is a container category for parliamentary elections, but its current title is problematic for several reasons, the main one being that 'general election' is an ambiguous term, as in some countries it refers to parliamentary elections (e.g. India, UK, New Zealand etc), in some it refers to elections in which both the president and parliament are elected simultaneously (most Latin American and many African countries), and in others it refers to elections in which posts are up for election at multiple levels of government. The national subcategories are (in almost all cases) named in accordance with the article title format for each country, and of the 96 subcategories, 48 use 'parliamentary', 29 use 'general', 16 use 'legislative' and four use 'federal'. As 'general' should be discounted for the reason mentioned above and 'federal' would not be appropriate as most countries are not federal, this leaves 'parliamentary' and 'legislative' as the two realistic options for alternative names. As well as being the most commonly used, I think 'parliamentary' is also the clearest description for the average reader, and is also the format used on Commons. There are a couple of anomalies in the category that will need dealing with as a result of a name change (the Brazil and US ones; the former should probably be renamed 'Parliamentary elections' (the articles titled 'general election' within it are also in presidential elections category), while the latter should probably be left in the country-level category tree). Number 5 7 03:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aggressor units of the United States Air Force

Propose merging Category:Aggressor units of the United States Air Force to Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force by type

Nominator's rationale: Contains only the subcategory Aggressor squadrons of the United States Air Force. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of the established category tree at the proposed merge target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worms (obsolete taxon)

Propose renaming Category:Worms (obsolete taxon) to Category:Vermes

Nominator's rationale: The name of the obsolete taxon is "Vermes", not "Worms". jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The main article and the relevant history is located in Worm.Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Worms and populate with the other taxa listed in the disambiguation category currently there. Otherwise rename per nom and purge content not about Vermes. This category is a weird hybrid of several things, and we either needs to embrace that, or give it a clear focus. It's possible (I haven't checked) that after the purge there won't be enough content to warrant a category and it should be deleted wholly - no objection to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept/renamed there should be a link to this category from Category:Worms. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I probably should've specified in the last relist: Thoughts on Pppery's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

Propose deleting Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, if fully populated this would largely overlap with Category:People from Courland Governorate and Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire be the parent in a sense of both those categories? Because for navigation it might be helpful to make this a container category. ^SMason_Garrison 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question. But there is also Category:People from the Baltic governorates so that would largely overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Indeed it would largely overlap, but there's a significant difference: this is for Latvians, not for other ethnicities living in the same region. Non-Latvians from the Courland Governorate include Abraham Zevi Idelsohn and Zelig Kalmanovich (both Jews), Eduard Schmidt von der Launitz, Carl Schmidt (chemist), and Oswald Schmiedeberg (Germans). If we want a category tree for Latvians by place, we probably should have one for Latvians from other parts of the Russian Empire. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Nyttend's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is it useful to have a category that includes almost everyone but excludes Jews and Germans? We do not have Category:White Americans populated with biographies either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's response?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in summer camps

Propose merging Category:Films set in summer camps to Category:Films about summer camps

Nominator's rationale: Do we need both categories? I can see a difference between the two, but I doubt that small distinction will actually be followed. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Every film in the about a summer camp cat must be in the setting cat because its impossible to have a film about a summer camp without being set in a summer camp. Setting is a primary defining feature of narrative works like film, so it is an essential category and should not be deleted or merged.

That said most of these articles belong in the setting category tree and not the topic category tree. One of the problems with the topic category tree is it often confuses topic with setting. Most of these films aren't about summer camps but about other things like friendship, growing up as a teenager, and host of the other things. Adams Family Values would be a perfect example of this. That film is about a family in conflict with a gold digging murderess as it primary story line. Parts of the film (and its just a side tangent) just happen to be set in a summer camp and its not "about a summer camp". Likewise The Parent Trap isn't about a summer camp but two twin sisters who re-unite after being separated at birth, and then switch places in an effort to reconnect their parents. Only a small portion of the film is "set" in a summer camp, and most of movie happens in the Boston and California homes of their parents. However, a documentary film about a summer camp would be a film about a summer camp, and a fictional film entirely set in a summer camp could feasibly be considered about a summer camp depending on narrative arc. Topic is much more subjective category whereas setting is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just said in more words what I said in my nomination, that the small distinction isn't something that editors can handle, seeing as the about category is full of films not about summer camps. Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. There is overlap but category trees by topic and setting often do overlap, which is ok. Topic and setting are two different things, but they are both defining aspects of a narrative work that may or may not overlap. I don’t think it hurts to have both, but if we must delete one the topic cat is by far the more ambiguous and therefore less useful category. The setting cat should be kept.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least mildly purge: articles in "about summer camps" don't have to be also in "set in summer camps". I am not opposed to merging however, or maybe reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus for any particular action. I will tag Category:Films about summer camps to allow for a reverse merge. Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional mammoths

Propose deleting Category:Fictional mammoths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 3 out of 4 of the entries in this category are redirects. Only article is of a book series and not of a fictional mammoth character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom but the redirects may still be moved to parent Category:Fictional proboscideans. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, merge and redirect to Category:Fictional proboscideans, with a note on Category:Mammoths saying where they have gone. But I'd be inclined to keep for simplicity. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to FL) adding a note on Category:Mammoths is certainly useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No actual articles about fictional mammoths. Jontesta (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about a rename to Category:Mammoths in fiction? BD2412 T 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a scope change? At that point I wonder whether it should be Category:Fiction about mammoths or such. DonIago (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means create Category:Fiction about mammoths if there are enough articles about fictional works about mammoths, but that has little to do with this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To those of you supporting a rename, what is your second choice? To those of you advocating the category's deletion, do you support a rename instead? Everyone: If renamed, what should the rename target be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already, I don't know why you haven't already, just 3 redirects, and The Mammoth Trilogy. Category:Fiction about mammoths could exist, but it probably would go by different name, nonetheless I would find better to simply categorize those article in Category:Mammoths just because. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IShowSpeed livestreams

Propose deleting Category:IShowSpeed livestreams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains redirects. It is generally considered harmful for a category to only contain redirects so there isn't much else for me to say here. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Kiphire district

Propose merging Category:Cities and towns in Kiphire district to Category:Cities and towns in Nagaland

Nominator's rationale: Category containing just one article. Unhelpful for navigation. Merge to parent, already categorised in other parent. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can I understand the rational for merging? If it is because there is only one related article, then do we have any guidelines saying we shouldn't create a category with one article and with the possibility of inclusion of many more articles as and when they are created? Such creation helps users to categorise easily instead of creating the articles in a broader category.

It's good to be streamlined rather than waiting for symptoms to appear to take actions. Pls note, I am not saying we should create empty categories! Thaejas (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category containing only one article is simply useless for navigation. It serves no purpose. If more articles are created or located, no objection to re-creation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge, also to Category:Kiphire district, without prejudice to recreation when a few more articles can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht racing biography stubs to Sailing biography stubs

Follow-up to this, broaden the scope of these stubs to sailing (Olympic sport) to include windsurfing, kitesurfing, dinghy racing etc. WPs Sailing, Stub sorting and Sports were notified a month ago without any feedback. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help but notice that none of these proposed category renamings includes the proposed target name here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yacht racing -> sailing - can be seen at each of the pages. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not here, which is kind of important, especially for the closing admin who has to move these to CFD/W if they're renamed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; given extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Clint Eastwood

Propose deleting Category:Children of Clint Eastwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Eastwood family exists. --wooden superman 09:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --wooden superman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles that categorize a person by anther related person (for example their spouse or parent). These articles were originally categorized with Clint Eastwood, so what you are basically saying is that we can't have these specific categories, but categorizing a person with the category for another person is alright. Inpops (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, people should not be categorised by other people per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:COPSEP. --wooden superman 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a weird structure. On top there is Category:Eastwood family, including his children, at the next level there is Category:Clint Eastwood, and finally under that there is Category:Children of Clint Eastwood with again the children. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Charlie Chaplin

Propose deleting Category:Children of Charlie Chaplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. --wooden superman 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --wooden superman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a weird structure. On top there is Category:Chaplin family, including his children, at the next level there is Category:Charlie Chaplin, and finally under that there is Category:Children of Charlie Chaplin with again the children. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state)

Propose deleting Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded subcategory of Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia, and a complete carbon copy of the Category:Electric multiple units of Victoria (state). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of its usefulness but there is a whole category tree by voltage. As it stands now, if not kept, the category should be merged to Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia or to Category:1500 V DC multiple units. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of New South Wales

Propose deleting Category:1500 V DC multiple units of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state); unneeded and clone subcategory, except the NSW one excludes New South Wales R set, which to me is only a marginal difference. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of its usefulness but there is a whole category tree by voltage. As it stands now, if not kept, the category should be merged to Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia or to Category:1500 V DC multiple units. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ikusaka, Nagano

Propose deleting Category:Ikusaka, Nagano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article, an an article about a national park, both of which are already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful category, for grouping of articles about Japanese municipalities, with links also to equivalent categories in other language Wikipedias. Please find something else to do rather than (proposal of) deletion of useful content and wasting of time. Same for other Japanese municipality-related listings here by the same User, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is a category containing two articles, with one being the main article, useful? This is a village of less than 2000 people. How does it aid navigation, which is the purpose of categorisation? AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this does not aid navigation. Villages as small as this hardly ever have a category on their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PewDiePie videos

Propose merging Category:PewDiePie videos to Category:PewDiePie

Nominator's rationale: This category contains Scare PewDiePie (a series, not an individual video), his videography, a list, good, but that still isn't an individual video. It also has two of his songs, which themselves aren't videos, but songs that also have a music video. Then you're left with just Minecraft Multiplayer Fun (and two songs which are already in the pre-existing songs category). People including the creator Sebbog13 are likely to just simply oppose this, however, the criteria I gave is the same reason Category:Video game glitches was unexpectedly deleted and merged into some other category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MrBeast videos

Propose merging Category:MrBeast videos to Category:MrBeast

Nominator's rationale: This category only has three pages, one of which is a redirect, leaving you with just two articles (not redirects). Even though it has enough content (sort of) it doesn't really matter (at least to me). The redirect 1,000 Blind People See For The First Time has a draft that has been declined multiple times, so that will probably never come to be anyway. I also believe Category:People associated with MrBeast should be merged to the Mrbeast category if not just deleted entirely. Also, speaking of MrBeast, we currently have two MrBeast Navigational templates, both of which have the same content; one a side-bar template, and the other a regular navigational box. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]