Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< June 3
June 5 >

June 4

edit

Category:Wikipedian AdBlock Users

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Sohom (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Association football training grounds by country

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Longhorn Records

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for one subcat with three articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American male spearfishers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are 20 categories for 15 spearfisher articles, which is not helpful for navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football clubs in Skåne County by city

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category structure is possible but the category Category:Football clubs in Skåne County is not overly complicated. The four Category:Football clubs in Foo City may be separated from the eponymous categories by [[:Category:Football clubs in Skåne County| Foo City]]. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stadionområdet (Malmö)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is more defining for these articles that they are sports venues in Malmö (parent category) than that they are situated close to each other in the city. No need to merge the two club categories inside. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malmö Redhawks arenas

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries and a non-standard type of category. Regarding merge targets, the first category parent is a subcategory of the second category parent. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:July 1997 sports events in Sweden

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With a peak of about 10 articles per year in recent years, it is to narrow to be useful to categorise sports events in Sweden by year and month. I missed these in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Category:Swedish sport by year and month. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scandinavian political parties

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Child of Category:Nordic politics and referring to Nordic Council political groups. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, political collaboration between countries is apparently organized across the Nordic countries rather than across the Scandinavian countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Containers of national categories at the level or regions (rather than e.g. continents) are not useful. They don't bring anything in terms of navigation (nothing more than the continent-level structure anyway) and they are inherently POV, because there are many different conflicting definitions of such regions. This results in overlap, which kills the purpose of navigation. The only exception to that is when there is a defining characteristic for the content, and that is not the case for the likes of Political parties in Sweden or Political parties in the Faroe Islands (i.e. such parties are not Scandinavian or Nordic as their primary defining characteristic, they are Swedish/Faroese). The only articles for which Nordic or Scandinavian is defining would be the political groups in the Nordic Council, which are already in Category:Party groups in the Nordic Council. And BTW, they are not really parties. Place Clichy (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked closer, I agree with Place Clichy that the articles the (Nordic Council groups and one other inter-Nordic organisation) are already properly categorised in Category:Nordic politics and this category can instead be deleted. (nominator) Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Real Book Song

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of these pieces because at time of writing, out of the 19 entries beginning with "A", only one, African Flower, explicitly mentions that it's in the Real Book. Also awkwardly overlaps with Category:Jazz standards; many (though not all) of the entries fit in that category or its subcategories, but "All in Love Is Fair" absolutely doesn't. Perhaps better as a list. If this is kept, it should be renamed to something like Category:Real Book compositions for proper pluralisation and capitalisation ... and because many of the entries have no lyrics and are therefore not songs. Category:Compositions in the Real Book would also work for this purpose. I was going to nominate this category for renaming but upon thinking about it, deletion seemd more appropriate. Graham87 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many jazz standards are not in the Real Book, and vice versa.
Lyrics are not now, and have never been, a requirement for something to be considered a song. Moreover, the Real Book is specifically designed for performances without vocalists, which is why the lead sheets in the book do not include lyrics. A typical Real Book user is a jazz instrumentalist.
The larger issue is whether or not being in the Real Book is a defining characteristic of a song. I can attest that it is. Perhaps other professionals can weigh in on this. It's enough of a metric that it is bizarre to have a Wikipedia entry for a song like "All of Me" and not reference the fact that it is in the Real Book.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is whether reliable sources about these songs consistently mention inclusion in the Real Book. Considering that it is hardly mentioned in Wikipedia articles suggests that this is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the question. Their inclusion in the book is the reliable source, Cf. WP:PLOTCITE. That's like asking for a reliable source that a word is in the dictionary. The dictionary is the source that supports the statement. So too here.Trumpetrep (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the question for the purposes of this discussion, which asks whether a piece's presence in the Real Book is an important enough characteristic for a category to be created. Also, on Wikipedia and in precise non-colloquial language, a song is written for voice; an instrumental isn't. Graham87 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Precise, non-colloquial language has never required a song to be written for voice. As previously stated, the Real Book is an omnipresent reference in the music industry. If a song is included in it, that is certainly an important enough characteristic for it to be categorized as such.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No objection to a list instead. But don't see this as problematic. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to copy over a comment made at the category's talk page by its creator, as it's relevant to this discussion and might be lost if the category is deleted. Graham87 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate User:Graham87's good faith nomination of this category for deletion. His concerns are not dissimilar from my own motivations for creating the category. How to organize information on Wikipedia is a persistent, vexing problem.

    I was startled to realize how little information there was on Wikipedia about these songs, which are some of the most recorded in the history of the music industry. There is no shortage of information on them, yet so many of the articles here are stubs ("Anthropology", "Boplicity", "A Foggy Day", etc.) Even a chestnut like "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" is just a start-class article on Wikipedia.

    I also found it perplexing that a foundational song like "Cherokee" was categorized as "Jazz compositions in B-flat major", which is about as helpful as a category for "Paintings that use the color blue". Given how fundamental transposing songs into different keys is to jazz performance, it's hard to see the utility of such a category. Someone else does, though, and that's what matters on Wikipedia.

    In my view, a category for Real Book songs helps the Wikipedia project connect information. Perhaps it will draw people to add much needed sources to articles about the book and its songs. Perhaps it might spur people to create articles for all the Gary Burton and Chick Corea songs that are in the book.

Wikipedia's policies are often contradictory. They are also legion. It's hard to know sometimes the best way to proceed. From what I understand, a list is less desirable than a category. That is why I created the category. Perhaps some Manual of Style exegete can set me straight. Regardless, my goal is simply to tidy up a neglected corner of Wikipedia and hopefully help some people learn about this repertoire.Trumpetrep (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using infobox deity with color param

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: dose not track anything useful PharaohCrab (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be in use behind the scenes. ("This is a tracking category. It is used to build and maintain a list or lists of pages—primarily for the sake of the lists themselves and their use in article and category maintenance. It is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme.") --Northernhenge (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are 65 articles in the category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Craven District

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: renamed and reparented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The local government “district” has been abolished. The geographic/cultural area is ancient (see Craven in the Domesday Book) so membership of the category still has significance. I was going to suggest Craven, England but – given the existence of other Cravens in England, I’m suggesting Craven, Yorkshire (even though historically it extended beyond the county boundary). Northernhenge (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Israel–Hamas war

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main article's title per WP:C2D and WP:CONSUB. Skemous (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because some subcats were tagged but not linked to the nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 11:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are more subcats than this; I have only added the ones that had already been tagged by an anon editor. The remainder can be processed later as Speedy, unless anybody wants to add them all now. – Fayenatic London 17:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comment I would have !voted differently on the WP:RM discussion on the article talk page, especially the lower case "w". But I don't want to second guess formal decisions made by consensus in other venues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although there have been many conflicts involving Israel in the Gaza area as early as 1948 and 1956, the current conflict is like no other in terms of length, casualties and significance. The name of the Gaza war article is not recentism, it acknowledges that, and it is most probably here to stay. Although that debate would above all be a question for a RM at the article's talk page, there is no reason to deviate from article title here. Place Clichy (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Margaret Hoover

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No rationale whatsoever for an eponymous Category with only one other article aside from the main article. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philippines–the Gambia relations

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have the correctly named Category:The Gambia–Philippines relations. DB1729talk 09:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Laos–France relations

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have the correctly named Category:France–Laos relations DB1729talk 09:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Accidents by continent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Romanian military personnel

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 27#Romanian military personnel

Category:15th-century men

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's really no need to have male occupations this early. 15th-century men was deleted as a category here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_12#Medieval_men SMasonGarrison 02:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_4&oldid=1298456446"