Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 6

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< June 5
June 7 >

June 6

edit

Category:People on Irish postage stamps

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. Rough consensus developed that WP:NONDEF applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being on a postage stamp is not a defining characteristic. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hi @Kaffet i halsen: I created the category but I don't understand your rationale. Can you explain, please, what you mean by "defining characteristic"? By my reading, when someone features on a postage stamp, that indeed is a defining characteristic.
Or, to put the question by comparison, how do you think this category is less defining or less important or less useful than such categories as these, for example?
Category: Burials at Montparnasse Cemetery
Category: Deaths from emphysema
Category: Deaths from ulcers:: Category: Expatriates in Croatia
Category: Eyepatch wearers
Category: Irish former Christians
Category: Stabbing survivors
Category: Writers of pessimistic fiction
How is wearing an eyepatch or dying of an ulcer more "defining" than being honoured by a nation's postage stamp? Thank you. Spideog (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". Reliable, secondary sources would commonly and consistently mention that a person was buried a Montparnasse Cemetery. Meanwhile, the article John F. Kennedy doesn't mention Kennedy is on an Irish postage stamp. That there are 43 lists of people on postage stamps and not 43 categories with people on postage stamp is perfectly valid as a list is a better way of conveying this information. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the expats category, I'd !vote to get rid of all your examples. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS especially with the tons non-defining categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:. I noticed this category earlier today because it got added to one of the articles I work on occasionally: Oliver Goldsmith. It seemed interesting and valuable to me to know that he got that nod from the Irish authorities who decide on such things, and it also seems interesting and noteworthy to see who else got that honor. I like this category. I realize the fact that I personally like it may not be all that important in the overall Wikipedia scheme of things, but I do thing it is interesting and valuable. Novellasyes (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. None of these people is particularly known for being on a stamp. By all means create lists instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, this is interesting and noteworthy information and it's a common category. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's review WP:NONDEF: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic ___location of a place." This is not a defining category for John F. Kennedy, because reliable sources almost never mention it when talking about him. I can see how it might be defining for some people, mainly those whose principal claim to fame is that they were on an Irish postage stamp.
So I'm OK with all you philatelists wanting to have and use this category, but I reserve the right to remove it from some articles, even if the person involved seems to fit the category. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to ask, then, why we have the likes of the various religious categories, when WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT aren't widely enforced? Category:American (or English, or French, or...) person who had a priest sprinkle water on their head when they were a baby and had no say in the matter and who haven't really mentioned their religion, if any, anywhere, since is also not a defining category, but it seems to be in absolutely widespread use. There are many more similar examples. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that content area, but as I say to anyone who poses WP:OSE-type questions like this - who's to say those are correct either? Do we know those would survive their own deletion discussion? Or if they have survived a deletion discussion, then what were the reasons presented there? Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting myself, off topic
I attribute a lot of the biography category issues (excluding BLPs) to over-reliance on obituaries. I've written maybe half a dozen for my family all of which identified their religion, even if they weren't practicing, and they were printed in otherwise reliable American newspapers with no disclosure that a family member wrote them. Even with obits written by a reporter with a byline the cultural expectation is to be super gentle, with occasional exceptions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Philately to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spideog (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Ireland to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spideog (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, @Novellasyes:. You articulated the supporting case for this category, viewed from the WikiProject Philately perspective, more incisively than I did. The point of this category is best appreciated from the perspective of that project rather than appraising it from the viewpoint of biographical articles. Prior comments raising the question of "defining characteristic" seem to have minimised the utility and legitimacy of the category under discussion based on a lack of appreciation of the category's legitimacy within WikiProject Philately.
I had hoped that members of WikiProject Philately would become aware of this discussion and contribute from that project's perspective, but my attempt to call their attention to the conversation has failed; it seems the project Talk page is not checked often by project participants. Spideog (talk) 23:49, 26 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:Don't Breathe (film series)

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles that are already directly interlinked (see their leads). Felida97 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 6 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:People from Kiliya

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See parent article Kiliia. Super Ψ Dro 16:02, 6 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.

New Spain

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 28#New Spain

Category:Surreal comedy

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: Split * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP we shouldn't have biographical and non-biographical articles in the same category. --woodensuperman 12:23, 6 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.

Burkinabe

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/rename * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In English, the form without an accent is predominant. In Fulani (Pulaar), the form with è is commonly used, while in French (at least as spoken in France), the form with é is preferred. For additional context, see this discussion: Talk:Burkinabe#Requested move 2015. If this proposal is accepted, please also update Module:CountryAdjectiveDemonym/Adjectives accordingly. --Hassan697 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Please also add "Burkinabe" as 'Demonym' in the infobox of Burkina Faso is this proposal is accepted. NLeeuw (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this feels more procedural given the article title. However, from my own initial searches I'm not seeing clear support for the statement that the accentless form is the most common in English sources. Quite the opposite, all the authoritative sources at the top of Google searches are showing the current form, Burkinabé.
The article move cited a CIA link as proof burkinabe was the common English form, but this isn't even consistent across US gov sites per the above. I have no personal preference, but I don't find the case for moving the article particularly convincing as-is SFB 14:36, 6 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:Corruption in Somalia

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 6 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:Crime in Somalia by type

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:27, 6 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:Films about hunters

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How can you have hunters without hunting? No need for two categories. There are far more entries in the hunters category, but IMO the other category name is better. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 6 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.

Animated television series episode redirects to lists

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each currently contains only one redirect. There is no need to also parent the redirect in the series category, because the target page is already within that. I have proposed redirecting South Park where it is more likely that other episode redirects will be created in future, and redirection can be automatically resolved in the template {{ER to list entry}}. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 6 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.

Early modern Romanian poets

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, apart from the subcategories they are very poorly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 6 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:Latvia–Japan 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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have the correctly titled Category:Japan–Latvia relations. DB1729talk 04:53, 6 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:Bosnia and Herzegovina microbiologists

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also merge with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina biologists.

Also nominating for merge:

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:Bolivian physiologists

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... 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Bolivian biologists.

Also nominating for merge:

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_6&oldid=1306173991"