Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14
January 16 >

January 15

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Hispanic and Latino American telenovelas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete: Non-defining category; just one entry Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian-American telenovelas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete: Empty category; these were all solely Brazilian telenovelas Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: There is a user who was been persistently creating this category and variations of it for Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series) when they are solely Brazilian productions. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vila Império

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: One article, category not needed. Gonnym (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beaches of Oceania by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant container layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olivetti S.p.A.

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: like the main article Olivetti InterComMan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationaal Songfestival presenters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Classic case of overcategorisation, specifically WP:NONDEFINING Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: What's the purpose of this? What "maintenance" is needed for these specifically? It looks as if every category can be restated as a "Wikipedia category named after", e.g. "Wikipedia categories named after countries", "Wikipedia categories named after years", essentially duplicating the category system. But why? If we want a category grouping all mass media franchises, it should be Category:Mass media franchises, not this. Fram (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - afaict, these seem to be an effort to diffuse Category:Eponymous categories. So these are part of that larger tree. Now whether that larger tree should exist, I don't know. This tree's cats are apparently all hidden cats, so apparently they are used somehow for the project, though I don't know how. Further info on this would be welcome. - jc37 09:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in YYYY

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contents are mostly about murders or murder victims, and therefore these are set categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes in Africa between 1900–1949

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Cleanup of WP:OCYEAR categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to isolate actresses of European decent from other expatriate accesses SMasonGarrison 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films; thoughts on Marcocapelle's points would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century churches in Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, these churches were established in Alania and have no ties with Kievan Rus' or the later Russian Empire. Culturally they were part of the Middle East. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no established category tree for this country, and churches seem to be mostly organized by their modern-day locations, e.g. Category:20th-century churches in Russia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza03's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's no need to diffuse the parent category to this degree. SMasonGarrison 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I disagree. Government ministers are a very notable role within Liechtenstein and should have their own century categories. There is also enough people with this role (page created or not) to warrant it's existence. Deputy heads of government, while technically a government minister, is also an entirely different role. TheBritinator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say anything about notability? I said that there's no need to diffuse this category by century. We don't keep categories around just because the pages might exist. SMasonGarrison 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. There is more than enough people to warrant it being split by century. It being split this way also makes for much simpler navigation. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I based my decision making for these categories similar to that of Category:20th-century vice presidents of the United States, for example. Why is this acceptable while mine is not? They serve the same purpose. TheBritinator (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a helpful argument. Why does there need to be 3 layers of politicians intersecting by century? SMasonGarrison 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the argument I was making. I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale, so I am asking for clarification. TheBritinator (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale" what level of rational do you need here? You are making a comparison to a much larger more developed category that covers more than 2 centuries. I've asked you to explain why we need this intersection, and thus far you've only pointed to other categories needing it. Not this one. SMasonGarrison 01:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good amount of these people are only notable for one role. As such, the intersection is ideal to make the navigation flow well with Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians, for example. Otherwise it will make it so they are not as easily found. My comparison is valid as it does in fact serve the same role, is that enough of an explanation? TheBritinator (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab Nationalist Movement breakaway groups

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a more accurate description as many of these groups emerged after the dissolution of the Arab Nationalist Movement. Charles Essie (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set on Mars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as for the Moon category below (see also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Works/Fiction_by_setting_(space)). Per my analysis below, this might be restored in the near future once humans land on Mars and we can have non-fiction works documenting this set on Mars. Arguably, if there are notable works (documentaries) about robot (probles) exploration on Mars, this category could be argued to have merit now, but right now it does not have any relevant entries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Jc37. There are only a dozen cats that begin "Fiction set on foo"; all of which can be seen as sub cats of Category:Fiction about planets. In my view all of these should be re-named/moved to Works set on... to fit into the "works by setting" category tree using its standard language. There needs to be a clear separation between the topic category tree and the setting category tree.4meter4 (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Works is a broader concept as it includes both fiction and non-fiction... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus It does when appropriate. It's not always appropriate. Take for example Category:Non-fiction novels which shows a very small number of works (less than 200 articles in the entire tree when adding up numbers in that cat and its subcats) comparatively to the many thousands of fictional novel articles under Category:Novels and its various sub-cats. When applying Category:Novels by setting and going to any individual sub-cat say Category:Novels set on farms should we separate non-fiction novels from fiction ones in that cat? The answer is likely no. We might have one or two non-fiction novels set on farms but isn't large enough a number under policy to create Category:Non-fiction novels set on farms. We generally need roughly ten articles in a category to justify creating it under policy. My point is, it is better to throw in all the non-fiction novels in with the fiction ones because they are rare and we can't justify sorting them out by our category policies on category size. Both fiction and non-fiction novels are still novels and they still have a setting and they can be sorted together. That's just one example where we can't sort. On the other side I could easily see creating a category tree Category:Documentary films by setting and sorting out fiction from non-fiction in film this way. There are lots of documentary films so they probably are able to sustain a sub-cat system large enough to be sorted in most locales. However, a region of the world not often featured in film both fiction or non-fiction may not be able to be sorted in this way, and therefore needs to lump both together. Regardless, your original merge proposal was attempting to merge the parent category ":Works set on Mars" to a sub-cat of the parent category: "Fiction set on Mars". That makes no sense. We can merge up to the parent cat but not down to the child. Otherwise we cut off a way to organize non-fiction and navigate up the category tree. You can’t cut out the parent cat or the tree navigation collapses.4meter4 (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I agree that reverse merge is preferable to my original proposal, if a merge is needed. But I still think it's fine to separate fiction and non-fiction here; otherwise it is hard to find the (agreed, relatively few) non-fiction works. There is value in having them easy to identify, and no cost to doing so. SMALLCAT should not, IMHO, apply to parent categories, which often double as useful container categories, just to pointless subcategories. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus This has been an odd area to edit in. At first people I call CFD regulars were opposed to the “Works by setting” structure because people erroneously believed non-fiction works didn’t have setting. It wasn’t until I pointed out that narrative non-fiction includes setting as a defining aspect in academic literature that they came around to the idea that there had to be room for non-fiction in the category structure. After that, there has been a trend to deprecate the fiction setting cats in favor of works by setting structure. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but it took forever for me to convince people to buy into the works by setting structure I’m loath to fight for the fiction by setting structure as many see it as duplicative. In other words this category outcome has happened before in this way in other discussions and is following a trend at CFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'd like to hear arguments from others. For now, while I totally support the existence of parent 'works' category, I also remain convinced we need to fiction subcategory. I mean, there is a large and non-redundant Category:Fiction tree anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Fiction set on Mars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flash television shows

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Better title for the category, to match with its subcategories. 2803:C600:8101:80DD:BC28:5B0:38B5:F109 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs clearer consensus on rename target, but there is definitely consensus to rename somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need clearer consensus on the rename target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peggy Jay family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: procedural nominaton, this was opposed at speedy because there was no speedy criterion applicable. Nom's rationale was: "To better summarise the contents as the family is wider than just direct relatives of Peggy Jay." I have no opinion about the proposal myself. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mike Selinker's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinctions since 1500

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the year 1500 is an arbitrary cutoff. If there is no opposition I will add the subcategories to the nomination for renaming from "since 1500" to "Holocene". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1500 may be arbitrary, but it is the date used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to track extinct species (they do not include species known to have gone extinct prior to 1500). 1500 is used because it's a round number near the start of the Age of Discovery, when (European) naturalists would have been able document species before they went extinct, and it represents a date after which human influence played a major role in all subsequent extinctions (there are extinctions prior to that date where humans played a major role, and there are likely some extinction after that date where.
I would not be strongly opposed to renaming the category to Category:Recent extinctions, which follows List of recently extinct fishes, List of recently extinct mammals and several other sublists in the entries at Lists of extinct species. However, I do feel that would just obfuscate the fact that 1500 is exactly the date chosen for an extinction to be considered "recent".
Contemporaneous documentation is what distinguishes prehistory from history. There is a whole category tree for Category:Prehistoric life; it is under Category:Extinct taxa, and categorization between the prehistoric/extinct categories is pretty messy (many prehistoric organisms are in extinct categories). But I think "recent extinctions in which humans played a major role" is something that is worthy of categories as is "prehistoric extinctions that occurred before humans evolved" (while recognizing that there is a grey area where humans may have played a role in some prehistoric extinctions once they had evolved (but there are also many extinctions during the Holocene where humans didn't play a major role)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Plantdrew's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Númenor

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in here. There is a very low probability of this being filled with meaningful articles. All the other inclusions here are redirects all to the same article, which are already categorized at category:Middle-earth location redirects. Jontesta (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's most recent comment? If not deleted, I don't see any opposition to the rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters incorrectly presumed dead

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a largely non-important criteria (Being presumed dead incorrectly). This is a fairly common trope across media and generally not important to a given character, which makes a category superfluous. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe TV Tropes calls this the Disney Death. But I can't double-check because connection to their server is very slow right now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jontesta (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I strongly disagree that it is not important as (as I explained the last time this was CfDed) it greatly impacts the characterisation, development, storylines, casting and the reception of characters (I am happy to give examples), and for many characters it becomes one of the biggest things that they are known for and the reason why they get so much SIGCOV. Even for example, Kathy Beale - her faked death was inspired by a real life case, whilst Cindy Beale's fake death got a lot of reception - showing that the category is not just in-universe. I am happy to include many more examples of how this impacts the characters. Additionally, there is a lot of SIGCOV about characters faking their deaths. I also disagree that the category is superfluous as if it applied to the majority of characters, there would be many thousands of characters in this category. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per above; this has been a defining trait for many characters involved in category. – Meena • 19:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those who support keeping this category, can we get some examples/evidence/sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish Civil War in the Canary Islands

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one person in here, which isn't very helpful for navigaiton SMasonGarrison 03:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attacks

[edit]
"Attack" categories for proposed deletion
Nominator's rationale: Recommened by PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) because: They're duplicative, have an undefined and vague scope, and are barely used. I don't think they're underused, but Attack is a disambiguation page, which supports their assertion — contents include animal attacks, terrorist attacks, mass shootings, military invasions, and much more. Most articles are, or should be, in more specific categories such as those of Category:Terrorist incidents. So I'm excluding subcategories based on a specific method or motive, such as Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents, and including only those which are just "attacks". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, especially to this scale. I'll disclose that I have a bias since I made many of these categories, but I simply don't agree that a wholesale deletion is the way to go. For example: Category:Attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces et al. are associated with the Sri Lankan civil war, and have main pages that go along with them. I also fundamentally disagree that, for example, "Category:Attacks on schools", "Category:Attacks on religious buildings and structures" or "Category:Attacks on hospitals" are "undefined and vague scope". Some of these categories also have dozens of pages in them, so I wouldn't call them "barely used" either. XTheBedrockX (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XTheBedrockX. This kind of indiscriminate mass deletion is a crazy bad idea. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is a massive nomination, kudos to nom for their efforts! I am not entirely sure of deletion though, because they are all about incidents of violence. An alternative is renaming/merging all of them from "attacks" to "violence". If deletion or merging goes ahead, it is recommendable to at least keep the main Category:Attacks as a disambiguation page to link to e.g. Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This would be a significant decategorization of a significant number of articles. I would be open to discussion of renaming and/or reorganizing, but I see no reason to pursue this on such a large scale. There are some categories that are sparsely populated (as is the situation with practically any tree of categories) but there are plenty (unfortunately in real-world terms, of course) that have numerous entries. Thanks to all for their efforts and let's discuss further as appropriate. KConWiki (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator raises a valid point in that the top-level Category:Attacks is unhelpfully vague, as are the Attacks by xxx main subcats. But this seems to be an issue that calls for extensive reorganisation rather than wholesale deletion. I don't think the way this CfD was nominated is suited for discussing the task. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attacks in which Poles died

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT, all of these attacks were terrorist incidents that killed indiscriminately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1867 in Argentine sport

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category SMasonGarrison 23:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it follows other convention and fits with others inside Category:1867 in sports by country. Other listings in this category similarly have one category per listing so it is not right to single out the Argentine one. If you are going to merge it should at least be consistent. For the reader it is useful and relevant to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayyn (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species that are or were threatened by human consumption for medicinal or magical purposes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Does anyone have a suggestion for renaming this category. It seems just really really long as it stands. SMasonGarrison 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_15&oldid=1269664163"