Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 5

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< June 4
June 6 >

June 5

edit

Category:Bissau-Guinean military doctors

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: Triple merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Bissau-Guinean physicians.

Also nominating for merge:

Support triple merge as nominator. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 11 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:Q150 Icons

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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is very cryptic: no one has any idea what it is, until they click on it and eventually navigate to List of Queensland's Q150 Icons. The proposed name is more sensible and should give readers the idea that it is a governmental designation/award/celebration. Note that I mistakenly created the proposed Category:Queensland's Q150 Icons when trying to create a redirect, which is apparently not possible. (PS: I'm working on the James Cook article, and it belongs to this category.) Noleander (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for not being more specific. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook WP:TOPTEN. It's impossible that there were exactly 150 worthy for recognition for a 150th anniversary. Either there were 100ish that deserved it and they fudged the rest or there 200 or so and they prematurely cut it off for a totally arbitrary number. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 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:Lists of anti-suffragists

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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category if the only list in it is List of anti-suffragists. Pichpich (talk) 19:04, 5 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:New Testament people named Mary

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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, obvious case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 5 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.

Template:Amsterdam-stub

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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template newly created for just one article. While stub templates don't have the same 60-article minimum that's required for the creation of a dedicated stub category, the creator of this did try to make it file its entry into a stub category that doesn't exist, but couldn't be created without at least 59 more usages than this -- so the only alternative was to replace that with the generic Category:Netherlands stubs. But since any potential candidates to have this template added to them would already have either {{Netherlands-stub}} or one of its topic-specific subtemplates on it anyway, the only thing this would actually add is unnecessary duplicate categorization (e.g. a page being in both Category:Netherlands stubs via this template, and Category:Dutch building and structure stubs via {{Netherlands-hotel-stub}}, at the same time.)
Further, it's not standard practice that every city automatically gets its own city stub template as a matter of course -- as far as I can tell, these otherwise exist only for cities where the template can be used on enough articles to support a dedicated city-level category, and not for cities where the template has to throw the article into the country-level parent category.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find at least 59 other articles that it could be added to in order to justify the creation of a full-on Category:Amsterdam stubs, but it isn't needed for just one thing. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 5 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.

Political activists by nationality

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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Activism is generally political, the overlap between e.g. "Soviet political activists" and "Soviet activists" seems very broad to me. Prezbo (talk) 08:25, 5 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:12th-century BC Hebrew women

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 22:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, small and isolated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 5 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.

Years in the 19th century in pre-existing Romania

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 as nominated. As always, headcount is not irrelevant when it comes to determining the consensus of a discussion. I see four editors supporting merging (numbermaniac cast an unbolded support for merging) to one editor opposed. To overcome such numbers, there would need to be some really great policy/guideline in favor of the single editor's position, and none were found convincing by participants. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to decade categories, mostly single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just notice that the previous years and decades had been nominated for deletion and sometimes already deleted, I wasn't informed despite having created a number of these. Anyway, these are as always really helpful for navigation and there is no reason to get rid of them. Adding more articles to them instead would be more helpful. I'll repopulate some of the deleted ones as well, no good reason to dismantle this. This crusade against all these history categories should really stop, it has been going on for years and now apparently more sneaky than ever. E.g Category:1817 establishments in Romania was created by me, but Marcocapelle didn't even have the basic decency to drop me a note about them.
Speedy keep and trout the nominator please. Fram (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, as is sadly usual with these kind of nominations, they only look at the current state, not at the potential. Often new articles can quite easily be added to these cats, and the gaps between them can partially or completely be filled as well. These cats are not by definition limited to what is now in them, but have potential. Fram (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's where something like WP:MFN comes in. They can be re-created if there are enough articles to justify splitting the decade categories into individual years, but for now there's no need to do so. I'd argue the current categories are actually less helpful for navigation, because instead of going to "1850s establishments in Romania" and seeing all the relevant pages, you have to open each of the individual year categories to see the articles within. – numbermaniac 15:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, WP:OCYEAR: "However, avoid creating a category tree of individual by year categories with very few members (see also #NARROW). In that situation, consider grouping them by the next tier up." Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But these are also part of e.g. Category:1834 establishments by country, which is a pretty wide tree where it makes no sense to remove (or regroup) the countries with so far fewer entries. It's easy to navigate and at the same time indicates biases or gaps (e.g. in this case Romania, large country, long chequered history, but fewer entries than might be expected; partially because articles have not been properly categorized, partly because we lack many articles on notable Romanian buildings, companies, groups, ...). Fram (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Having a whole series of WP:NARROWCAT subcategories does not aid navigation and the phrase "growth potential" is no longer a part of WP:OC, by consensus. No objection to later recreation though if the actual article count grows substantially, per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 12 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:Education in Muzaffarpur 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: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry and more appropriate to merge to Category:Education in Muzaffarpur. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 5 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:St. Mary's School, Mumbai alumni

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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. No merge as no appropriate merge target. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 5 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:Qatar–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: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to correct name. DB1729talk 01:10, 5 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:Morocco–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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have Category:The Gambia–Morocco relations. DB1729talk 01:07, 5 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:Guinea–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: Redirect * Pppery * it has begun... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have Category:The Gambia–Guinea relations. DB1729talk 01:05, 5 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:Television shows featuring audio description

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... 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is a WP:NONDEFINING characteristic of these shows. There may be areas where a show's offering of described video (DV) may be a notable characteristic (such as Daredevil fittingly being Netflix's first series to offer DV, and programs pulling this off live), but it is not "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". In addition, many countries (including Canada and the United States) have laws requiring larger broadcasters to carry quotas of programming with DV, therefore it is increasingly common for it to be offered, and therefore a trivial characteristic in today's media landscape. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:05, 5 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_5&oldid=1298676476"