Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 13

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< March 12
March 14 >

March 13

edit

Category:University and college theatres in London

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 21#Category:University and college theatres in London

Category:Video games with tile-based graphics

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#Category:Video games with tile-based graphics

Category:People in arts occupations from Northern Ireland

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better word order, which will be consistent with Category:People from Georgia (country) in arts occupations. The disadvantage of the latter format is that it is hard to build by template, and indeed that is probably the reason for the current word order; however, renaming will not now cause additional work, since Place Clichy already removed {{Fooers from Northern Ireland}} from the subcats in 2023 (before fixing the identified fault in that template). – Fayenatic London 22:12, 13 March 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:Cryptocurrency stubs

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 21#Category:Cryptocurrency stubs

Category:Entertainers from Bakersfield, California

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries

Also propose merging-

All categories with two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:45, 13 March 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:Rock bandleaders

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with unclear and subjective inclusion criteria. "Bandleader" was a jazz-specific concept (i.e. specifically in big band jazz) that doesn't really have the same currency in rock music at all, so it's deeply subjective and arbitrary as to who would or wouldn't belong here: the lead singer? The primary songwriter(s)? The person in the band who's deemed to be its primary "creative force", regardless of their instrumental role? Any person whose backing band is eponymously named? Anybody who's the sole constant member of any musical project whose membership otherwise varies from release to release? Every "solo" singer-songwriter who works with a team of session musicians?
The term just doesn't have a straightforward and objective definition in rock music in anything like the same way it did in big band jazz, so it's merely a magnet for editwarring (at least one editor has already tried to make it go away by simply blanking it, even though they've been around more than long enough to know better than that, as well as reverting it back off a couple of people the creator had added it to) rather than a clear, objective or straightforward category. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being the editor who has been around long enough to know better, yeah, I actually regretted that and discovered this notice just now when I went back to self-revert. Apologies to all. I occasionally find categories like this so frustrating as to not take the proper approach. Obviously, I agree with removing this category. As noted, there is no clear definition and it appears to have been added to various articles with no clear rhyme or reason. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 14 March 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:Lithium, Missouri

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 (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need a category for a village of 92 people (2020 census). The two articles of the category (beyond the main one) are churches, which are already categorized in Category:Churches in Perry County, Missouri. Pichpich (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pichpich and I somehow managed to both hit this category at the same time — I was already formulating a deletion nomination on this on my own, but this one had duplicated mine by the time I was done. So just for the record, here's the rationale I used:

    Eponymous category for a small town (population less than 100 total) without enough related topics to need an eponymous category. As always, every populated place that exists does not automatically get its own eponymous category as a matter of course -- that's warranted for places that are large enough to have a lot of things to file in it, but is not an automatic feature of every place that exists. But apart from the eponym itself, the only other things filed here are two churches, which isn't enough to justify the creation of an eponymous category for the town.

    So obviously I also support deletion. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pichpich and Bearcat. Gjs238 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 14 March 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:WWE RAW CONTROVERSIES

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named (why the all-caps?) category that is not defining of its contents. As it stands, the only thing here is List of WWE Raw guest stars, a thing which is not inherently "controversial" -- a few individual guest stars might have been controversial, but the basic phenomenon of guest stars is not a controversy at all, so a list of guest stars is not a "controversy" in and of itself. And the only other thing that was here is Category:WWE controversies, but that's had to be removed as it's a parent topic of this rather than a child subtopic -- and furthermore, since that category already exists, it's far from clear that this category would be needed alongside it: anything that was actually a WWE Raw controversy would, by definition, already be a WWE controversy to begin with, and that category is far from large enough to need exhaustive subcategorization for individual WWE events separately from the parent.
So this isn't necessary for just one thing that isn't even an actual controversy in the first place, and the existing parent category can already cover anything that actually is a controversy. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A couple of other things have since been added to this category after this nomination was completed, but it's still not at all clear that either of them would specifically require a "WWE Raw controversies" category as opposed to the existing "WWE controversies" category either, one of them is just the venue where a controversial event that already has its own separate article happened rather than a controversy in its own right, and even if the category were to be kept it would still have to be renamed to get rid of the ridiculous and unwarranted all-capping. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Bearcat's update It's not clear why 2007 WWE Draft is in a "controversies" category. And of course, Bearcat is right that American Bank Center has no business there either. Pichpich (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's clear why any of these things are in this category. Delete.LM2000 (talk) 12:31, 30 March 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:Minors who completed medical affirmation

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 (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't really think this is a suitable topic for a category, we don't categorise others by whether or not they've had gender-affirming surgery, should we be classifying people who did when they were minors in this way? --woodensuperman 14:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: I note that this was created by a now blocked editor who was topic-banned for trans related editing. --woodensuperman 14:15, 13 March 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:Victoria's Secret Angels

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: Speedy delete per G4. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isn't modeliing by specific company just a WP:PERFCAT? --woodensuperman 13:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m going to have to disagree because for decades the Victoria's Secret Angels were notable on their own (they even collectively have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame) and being an Angel was a defining characteristic of one’s modeling career by countless reliable sources. If you have 44 people in this category who were notable this way from the 90s-2020s I don’t see the need to delete. Trillfendi (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for notability of the article, not for categorisation. Note that this has actually been deleted multiple times before and therefore should actually be speedily deleted. You should have spotted this when you recreated it against consensus. This definitely falls foul of WP:PERFCAT, see this discussion. --woodensuperman 15:44, 13 March 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:Biopharmaceutical companies

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 (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Biopharmaceuticals and pharmaceuticals are now rather synonymous. I recommend merging the two categories and distributing the companies into the appropriate country related categories. Chrisvanlang (talk) 13:43, 13 March 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pokamona

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. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Supected sock was banned or blocked last 6 years after created by Sir Sputnik 112.207.123.170 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – no reason given for deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:24, 13 March 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:Coke Studio (Pakistani TV program)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 21#Category:Coke Studio (Pakistani TV program)


Category:People from Scherpenzeel, Gelderland

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:26, 13 March 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:Portuguese people by ___location and occupation

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 03:31, 13 March 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 Gaborone by occupation

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 (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 03:02, 13 March 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:Ambassadors of Kyrgyzstan to Jordan

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 to Category:Ambassadors to Jordan. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge this underpopulated category. I've already warned the category creator for making underpopulated categories like this. SMasonGarrison 02:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as per nom. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 13 March 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:Highest-scoring sports matches

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A rename will make the purpose of these categories more explicit and better matches the current content. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 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:Long words

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. How long does a word need to be to be considered long? (rhetorical) –Aidan721 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 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:Italian traumatologists

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Italian surgeons. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 13 March 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_March_13&oldid=1284031017"