Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 16

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< March 15
March 17 >

March 16

edit

Category:19th-century musicians from New Orleans

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: manual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse by century for modern professions (Jazz musicians). Plus there's no need to diffuse people within a city by century and occupation. I've already removed people who weren't defined by the 19th-century (many were born in the 1890s) SMasonGarrison 23:58, 16 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.

Tornadoes by intensity by date/___location

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: upmerge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see why these are subcategories, in my mind F3 tornadoes by ___location (for example) should only include subcategories like "F3 tornadoes in Oklahoma", none of which exist. The same goes for by date. I feel like all the articles in these categories should just be in their respective parent category unless it's deemed necessary to create additional categories such as "F4 tornadoes in Texas". harrz talk 22:00, 16 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:Tornado outbreaks by intensity

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 to Category:Tornadoes by intensity. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: subcategories include all tornadoes, not just outbreaks. harrz talk 21:40, 16 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:F2 tornadoes

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 to Category:F2, EF2 and IF2 tornadoes. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in accordance with Category:F5, EF5 and IF5 tornadoes and Category:F4, EF4 and IF4 tornadoes harrz talk 21:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 19 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:F3 and EF3 tornadoes

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 to Category:F3, EF3 and IF3 tornadoes. Beland (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in accordance with Category:F5, EF5 and IF5 tornadoes and Category:F4, EF4 and IF4 tornadoes harrz talk 21:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 19 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.

Verbandsgemeinden in Rhineland-Palatinate

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 to Category:Verbandsgemeinden in Rhineland-Palatinate. Speedy per C2A/C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Plural, See Category:Verbandsgemeinden in Saxony-Anhalt and Category:Verbandsgemeinden in Brandenburg. BigBullfrog (talk) 21:19, 16 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:Indian military personnel 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: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague. What does type mean? And by does it apply to cause of death AND recipients of the Victoria cross? There's no reason to isolate this category SMasonGarrison 21:18, 16 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:Canadian federal deputy ministers

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 24#Category:Canadian federal deputy ministers

Category:Canadian federal civil servants

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. Beland (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear that we need to distinguish federal Canadian civil servants for the federal gonvernment from other Canadian civil servants SMasonGarrison 20:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They serve different governments. It's like saying that there shouldn't be separate categories for American federal senators and state senators. Atchom (talk) 23:49, 16 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:Hong Kong film presenters

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) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this is defining. But, if it is, then we need to rename this category to cover more than just Hong Kong because Category:Film presenters doesn't exist SMasonGarrison 18:01, 16 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:2010s Kazakh-language films

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) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear necessity, newly created for just one film. Unlike the by-country sibling listed below, the Kazakh vs. Kazakstani thing isn't the issue here, as Kazakh is the correct label for the language -- which is why I'm listing this one separately even though they were both created for the same film. But there are only 35 articles in Category:Kazakh-language films, and less than 60 films total under the entire Category:Kazakhstani films tree (thus suggesting that there aren't very many Kazakh-language films still missing from this category), so it's not at all obvious that they would need to be subcategorized by decade of release at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 16 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:2010s Kazakh films

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) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improperly named category of unclear necessity, newly created just for one film. With less than 60 films total under the entire Category:Kazakhstani films tree, it's not at all clear that they would need to be subcategorized by decade of release the way some (but not all) countries with a much larger number of films are -- but even if there were a valid reason to keep this, it would have to be renamed to Category:2010s Kazakhstani films, because we need to uphold the distinction between Kazakhstani nationals (who aren't necessarily all Kazakh by ethnicity) and ethnic Kazakhs (who don't necessarily all live in Kazakhstan), which is precisely why the parent category is "Kazakhstani films" rather than "Kazakh films".
So if people genuinely feel strongly that subcategorizing a grand total of just 55 films by decade is warranted, then I'm willing to abide by renaming this -- but I don't think it's warranted, which is why I'm listing this as a deletion nomination rather than a renaming nomination. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 16 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 Emsworth, Pennsylvania

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) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 15:11, 16 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:Basketball players from Delhi

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) 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also propose merging-

All categories with four or less entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:57, 16 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.

Palestinian territories

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) 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_5#Palestinian_territories. --Hassan697 (talk) 11:56, 16 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:Chinese intensivists

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) 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Chinese physicians.

Also propose merging:

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:Defunct International Cricket Council events

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:International Cricket Council events and Category:Defunct cricket competitions. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just one event, could be up-merged to the main cat. Vestrian24Bio 07:14, 16 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:Batman objects

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent and sister cats (Category:Star Trek technology, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no official opposition expressed so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:49, 16 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:Mayoral elections in Irvine, 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: Manual merge. Thank you to all for keeping it civil even in the face of disagreement. There is unanimous consensus that the status quo is not an acceptable way to go about things, so the real question is what the best way forward is. An automatic merge was originally proposed, and straight-up deletion was also mentioned as an option. A plurality supported the goldilocks option –manual merging, so I find rough consensus to do that. There is also rough consensus against the creation of redirect-only categories to facilitate the manual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in this category redirect to the same page. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: This is also the case for the following 15 siblings:
Do you want to nominate those as well (I believe those are all the subcats of Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city that have this exact issue)? (As was the case with the already nominated category, for some of those siblings, the eponymous article would need to be added to some cats before nominating the cat for deletion.) Felida97 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the redirects could be fairly labeled "redirects with potential", it is worth noting. SecretName101 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual merge? Expand the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expanding and refactoring nomination...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • As original nominator, support the additional categories nominated, but oppose merging to any red link Category:Government of Fooville categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two categories will be renamed into those gaps. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move redirects to a separate category per my comment here: This category's redirects are categorized as per WP:SUBTOPICCAT, but they all point to the one article inside. So I'd say go with deleting this category and separating the redirects into a redirect category, similar to the endless categories for character/episode redirects and Category:Unopposed ministerial by-elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (redirects). Also, manual merging will just flood the categories with redundant redirects when dedicated redirect categories can take care of it. Please note that the comment below the linked one was a PERX that did not go in depth in rebutting my argument there and came in late meaning there was little time to rebut it before it was closed. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the new categories should be called "Category:[insert city here] mayoral election redirects". ミラP@Miraclepine 15:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of the merge is to merge only the non-redirect article from each category so there's no flooding happening. Strong oppose creating redirect categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: Yes, the (non-redirect) articles will still have the category upmerged and part of the tree. Can you please specify any issue with redirect categories being part of the tree? After all, the point of my idea is to make the redirect categorization more uniform with, for example, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe redirects to lists being part of the Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe, since these IMO should be allowed per WP:SUBTOPICCAT and WP:INCOMPATIBLE. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: any response? it's lio! | talk | work 12:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 05:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These categories only contain redirects (I assume all of them do, I tried to check most of them).
Only the parent article needs to be in whatever the category's parent categories are. All the redirects just need to be {{R to section}} (which is perfectly fine, here) and don't need to be in any category. We do not need redirect categories, they serve no real useful purpose here. My proposal is just giving the parent article the category's categories and removing the categories from the redirects, then deleting the category. Chew(V • T • E) 20:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need redirect categories, they serve no real useful purpose here. Doesn't WP:RCAT explain these useful purposes? ミラP@Miraclepine 00:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects don't need to be categorized, in my opinion. If they did, they would be categorized like this, but it should become a "Government election redirects", which I'm not proposing or supporting. I think R to section on these redirects are perfectly serviceable. Chew(V • T • E) 00:29, 22 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:Women singers on Golha

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) 17:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and rename to Golha (radio programmes) singers or Iranian radio singers. There's no need to break down Radio singers by gender. SMasonGarrison 03:52, 16 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_16&oldid=1284033907"