Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today
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
[edit]- 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.
- Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
- 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.
- 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
[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_1
November 1
[edit]NEW NOMINATIONS
[edit]Category:Companies based in Cēsis
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Companies based in Cēsis to Category:Cēsis
- Propose merging Category:Companies based in Liepāja to Category:Liepāja
- Nominator's rationale: merge, categories with a single member, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Geography of Latvia by city
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Geography of Latvia by city to Category:Geography by city and Category:Geography of Latvia
- Propose merging Category:Museums in Latvia by populated place to Category:Museums by populated place and Category:Museums in Latvia
- Propose merging Category:Culture by city in Latvia to Category:Culture by city and Category:Culture of Latvia
- Propose merging Category:Education in Latvia by populated place to Category:Education by populated place and Category:Education in Latvia
- Propose merging Category:Tourist attractions in Latvia by city to Category:Tourist attractions by populated place and Category:Tourist attractions in Latvia
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with each only a subcategory for Riga. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Öresundsvarvet
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: delete, the subcategory suffices (that one might be renamed to Category:Ships built by at the Öresundsvarvet). No need to merge, the main article is already in Category:Defunct companies based in Landskrona, the subcategory is already in Category:History of transport in Landskrona. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Rutulian film people
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Rutulian film people to Category:Rutulian people by occupation
- Propose merging Category:Rutulian men by occupation to Category:Rutulian men
- Propose merging Category:Rutulian people in sports to Category:Rutulian people by occupation
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers SMasonGarrison 02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Edhi family
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Edhi family to Category:Gujarati Muslims
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category doesn't help navigation with only a husband and wive pair who are already interlinked SMasonGarrison 02:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete, neither of the two is specifically known as a Muslim. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Indian People's Theatre Association people
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: The revised text appears to be more appropriate and conveys a better understanding of the category. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. This is without prjudice to creating a chairs or activists category if they are defining characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete instead per WP:NOTDEF. If kept, oppose renaming for two reasons: 1. Abbreviations should be avoided (see WP:CATNAME; I don't think this falls under "acronyms that have become the official, or generally used, name (such as NATO)", evidenced by the title of the corresponding main article Indian People's Theatre Association); 2. (assuming WP:OCASSOC doesn't apply) while for this kind of category the naming schemes "People associated with..." and "... people" would be possible, it seems like if the organization name includes the word "association", only the latter is currently used (see search 1 and search 2), probably for stylistic reasons. Felida97 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was not tagged; I will do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Empires and kingdoms of foo
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan
- Propose merging Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former countries in Indian history
- Propose renaming Category:Ancient empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Ancient polities in India
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Medieval polities in India
- Propose renaming Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan to Category:Former polities in Afghanistan
- Propose renaming Category:Former countries in Indian history to Category:Former polities in India
- Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former polities in Iran
- Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former polities in Nepal
- Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former polities in Pakistan
- Nominator's rationale: These are not all "empires and kingdoms", but rather include all historical states which once inhabited the modern-day territory of these countries. Opting for "polities" rather than "states" to remove any ambiguity (and these were not all "countries" either). Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan (currently the lone country cat in Category:Former territorial entities in Asia) and Category:Former countries in Indian history already exist, and thus Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan and Category:Empires and kingdoms of India should be merged there, and the two parents renamed with the desired naming scheme. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, if there are any articles not about kingdoms or empires they should be purged, but at first glance all content is ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former monarchies in Pakistani history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former monarchies in Afghan history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former monarchies of Iran, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former monarchies of Nepal, Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former monarchies of India, Category:Ancient empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Ancient Indian monarchies, Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Medieval Indian monarchies.
Rename Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former countries in Pakistani history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former countries in Afghan history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former countries in Iranian history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former countries in Nepali history, and merge Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former countries in Indian history. The current names have issues related to anachronism that needs to be fixed. (Changed vote after discussion below)Merge to Category:History of Pakistan, Category:History of Afghanistan, Category:History of Nepal, or any of their sub-categories. These categories are unnecessary and non-conventional and have issues related to anachronism. The nominated categories appear to be one of a kind almost exclusively found in the South Asian topic area. Other articles related to former polities use categories such as Former kingdoms or Former empires along with Medieval history of Germany, Modern History of Italy, and so on. There is no reason South Asian topics should be an exception.PadFoot (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- In fact there is a Category:Italian states. I sympathize with the argument of anachronism, but merging to general history categories would result in these categories becoming very messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I think that Category:Italian states does not pose a similar issue as it seems to be based on ethnicity and/or a link to a historical region, and thus is not anachronistic. To me, anachronism seems to be a significant issue in the case of the nominated categories, which needs to be addressed in one way or another. PadFoot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to conclude that it is based on ethnicity or historical region. The category just lists all states within the boundaries of 21st-century Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, See the category itself. It says in the top:
Besides, what is important is that the nominated categories present issues of anachronism. Perhaps you could suggest a way to fix that? PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)This category contains articles on former Italian countries and polities. This category contain all the former states south of the Alpine water divide (North Italy) and in the Italian Peninsula and all the states of Italian language and or culture.
- The Italian Peninsula may well be considered to be a region, but current North Italy isn't part of it. North Italy is included in the category just because it belongs to the current state of Italy. There is also Category:Former countries in Spanish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- North Italy is indeed a part of it. See the very first line of the article on Italian Peninsula:
Besides, the cat also mentions "states of Italian language and culture". However, you have convinced me that the categories should be retained and not merged, but should be renamed (in one way or another) to fix the anachronism. Perhaps, we should also expand in the categories. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)is a peninsula extending from the southern Alps in the north to the central Mediterranean Sea in the south
- North Italy is indeed a part of it. See the very first line of the article on Italian Peninsula:
- The Italian Peninsula may well be considered to be a region, but current North Italy isn't part of it. North Italy is included in the category just because it belongs to the current state of Italy. There is also Category:Former countries in Spanish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, See the category itself. It says in the top:
- I am not sure how to conclude that it is based on ethnicity or historical region. The category just lists all states within the boundaries of 21st-century Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I think that Category:Italian states does not pose a similar issue as it seems to be based on ethnicity and/or a link to a historical region, and thus is not anachronistic. To me, anachronism seems to be a significant issue in the case of the nominated categories, which needs to be addressed in one way or another. PadFoot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- In fact there is a Category:Italian states. I sympathize with the argument of anachronism, but merging to general history categories would result in these categories becoming very messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008: please do not remove articles from any of the nominated categories while we are discussing them. If you think there are other issues with these categories you can raise them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- With the revised rename proposal, it is still not clear what is wrong with "empires and kingdoms". For brevity we might rename it to "monarchies" but any rename beyond that seems unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, monarchies would be good, but there would still be a problem with anachronism, which is why I suggest changing "of country" to "in country history", (like "in Spanish history" instead of "of Spain"). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's keep it at monarchies then. I do not have a clear opinion on "of country" versus "in country history". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, Alright. Shall I change my proposal to "Monarchies of India", "Ancient monarchies of India" and so on then? Would that be good? PadFoot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008: that would definitely be helpful for the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I've placed a new proposal. A problem I see with this however is that we get anachronistic constructs such as "Monarchies of Pakistan" (or earlier "Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan"), as these monarchies didn't exist in a territory called 'Pakistan', which is why I think that "Monarchies in Pakistani history"/"Former monarchies in Pakistani history" would be better in this case. PadFoot (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I am not opposing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, is it possible to nominate the same category twice or do I have to wait until this is over? PadFoot (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry, the closer will read the entire discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I am not opposing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I've placed a new proposal. A problem I see with this however is that we get anachronistic constructs such as "Monarchies of Pakistan" (or earlier "Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan"), as these monarchies didn't exist in a territory called 'Pakistan', which is why I think that "Monarchies in Pakistani history"/"Former monarchies in Pakistani history" would be better in this case. PadFoot (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008: that would definitely be helpful for the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, Alright. Shall I change my proposal to "Monarchies of India", "Ancient monarchies of India" and so on then? Would that be good? PadFoot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's keep it at monarchies then. I do not have a clear opinion on "of country" versus "in country history". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, monarchies would be good, but there would still be a problem with anachronism, which is why I suggest changing "of country" to "in country history", (like "in Spanish history" instead of "of Spain"). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alternative name suggested by PadFoot?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alternative name suggested by PadFoot?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Afghanistan)
[edit]- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Asia-Pacific) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Africa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Americas) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (BRICS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Commonwealth) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Global) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Europe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (MENA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Security) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (NATO) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (UN) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Nominating these subcats of the main 21st-century diplomatic conferences category. These subcats are WP:Overcat or in this case over subcat as each one of these subcats don't do much in terms of organizing these articles in a proper order nor are accurate.
For instance, the Afghanistan subcat deals in regard to the War in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. But the G7 articles under the Global subcat also dealt with Afghanistan including other conflicts. The G7 summit in 2013 for instance dealt with the war in Syria as one of the agenda items. So if there was a subcat with (Syria) in the title, it would go in there as well by this logic of the now-banned creator. But it too would go in the Global category. So, it would be too many categories for each summit that overlap on issues they deal with.
If there are going to subcats for the main category, it should be probably be something like "Category:2024 diplomatic conferences" as by year would help reduce the overflow of articles in one category. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- If not kept, at least merge to Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)