Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27
April 29 >

April 28[edit]

Category:Academic staff of the Robson Hall[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:Academic staff of the University of Manitoba. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clear grammatical error. Rowing007 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2023 (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:Mechanised infantry brigades of Ukraine[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:Templates for mechanized brigades of Ukraine. Once renamed to match the actual contents and to avoid confusion with another category, no other valid reason to delete has been given. Note that the original rename proposal does not match the parent, which is Category:Mechanized brigades of Ukraine. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Title is misleading since the category doesn't contain articles about mechanised infantry brigades of Ukraine but rather templates with military unit icons. Note that we already have Category:Mechanized brigades of Ukraine so I don't think Category:Mechanised infantry brigades of Ukraine is necessary. Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given its parent Category:Templates for military moldings Ukraine it should just be renamed Category:Templates for mechanised infantry brigades of Ukraine. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2023 (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:White Russia[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:Russian State (1918–1920). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think it is clear that Russian State (1918–1920) is intended to be the main article (WP:C2D). Without context, people may not understand what this category means. Its parents are Category:White movement (makes sense) and Category:Post–Russian Empire states; the latter shows this is just one of many "White Army" anti-Bolshevik states, just like South Russia (1919–1920) (South Russian Government). Category:South Russia is currently a child category, but this polity was not part of the Russian State, and should become its sibling in Category:White movement and Category:Post–Russian Empire states (i.e re-parented) rather than its child. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Improves ambiguous category name that is likely to be misinterpreted.  —Michael Z. 15:53, 25 May 2023 (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:Wars involving the Soviet Union[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category description is This category includes historical wars in which Soviet Russia (RSFSR) and the Soviet Union (1922–1991) participated., but several users have reverted me (at Estonian War of Independence, Lithuanian–Soviet War, Lithuanian Wars of Independence) a few days ago when I changed Category:Wars involving Russia to Category:Wars involving the Soviet Union for armed conflicts during 1917–1921 involving the RSFSR. Technically they are right that the Soviet Union didn't exist yet (until 28 December 1922), even though the category description says the category is also for the RSFSR (founded on 7 November 1917). This means the category name just isn't clear enough, and should explicitly include "Soviet Russia" (or "RSFSR").
Alt proposal rationale: The alternative to a long name is to split them in two. There is already a Category:Soviet Russia in World War I which might serve this purpose, but it only has 3 items so far, and it's not clear that it's meant to be a "wars involving Soviet Russia" thing. Given that World War I ended on 11 November 1918, and most wars involving Soviet Russia occurred before the Soviet Union was founded on 28 December 1922, it makes sense to broaden the scope. Therefore, the alternative I propose is to Rename the latter and Manually move all items about wars involving Soviet Russia during the years 1917 to 1922 to this category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The result of this CfR can serve as a precedent for Category:Battles involving the Soviet Union and Category:Military operations involving the Soviet Union, but I'd rather not overcomplicate things, and reach agreement on "Wars" first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2023 (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.

Imperial Chinese government officials[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) 20:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, follow-up on this earlier discussion. The tree mainly contains bureaucrats and military personnel. Note that many articles also wrongly use the word politician. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (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:Children of billionaires[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) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale:
  • WP:TRIVIALCAT - Stating that people are offspring of someone who is considered "rich" has nothing to do with their particular notability, this characteristic of their lives might be interesting but it isn't encyclopedic and it is simply trivial.
  • WP:SUBJECTIVECAT & WP:OCASSOC - A biological subject's parent's amount of money in the bank is an ever changing topic. Someone might be a billionaire one year and not the next and, if accepted as a category topic, what should Wikipedia even accept as a reliable source of such a claim. And, besides all that, it is tangential to the article subjects' themselves, this "Children of..." Category is basically an "associated with" type of category and that is against editing guidelines. Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of billionaires

I first posted about this Cat at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 74#New_category... and it was suggested that I should post here instead.
Newly-created category populated with 120+ biographical articles. WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEF would seem to apply. I thought about just going ahead and nominating it for deletion but wasn't sure. So here I am, ready to discuss. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query nominating it for what? Renaming? Merging? Deletion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I thought about "nominating it for deletion" but I'm not sure about how to proceed, that's why I posted about it here - to discuss. Seems like a trivial/non-encylopedic Category to me but maybe I'm wrong. Thought I should get feedback before proceeding. Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've officially nominated it for you. Please supply your own rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2023 (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:Ancient people who committed suicide[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 the listed categories as follows:

There was consensus that MOS:SUICIDE neither encourages nor discourages use of the phrase "committed suicide", and thus both are acceptable. However, there was consensus that MOS:SUICIDE points to external style guides, which discourage use of the phrase as "potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people", and thus use of the phrase "died by suicide" is more consistent with WP:NDESC; there was further consensus that, in this case—as applied to category names— NDESC outweighs WP:COMMONNAME since both phrases are in common usage and categories are internal Wikipedia tools. Finally, there was consensus that the 2021 RfC does not preclude renaming the categories, as confirmed by the closer of that RfC, who aptly noted that the original RfC called for further deliberation and the passage of time, which is what has occurred through this process. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The phrase "commited suicide" is not outright banned, but MOS:SUICIDE notes that "many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people". Cambridge Dictionary for one, says that the phrase is "now considered offensive because it suggests that doing this is a crime". I suggest we replace "committed" with "died by". gobonobo + c 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, which also applies to categories per Wikipedia policy. There is no proof that is the commonly used term and Wikipedia is not censored to avoid every potential offense possible. When that is provably the term used by the majority of reliable sources, it should be changed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrality is a consideration as well. COMMONNAME also says that we use "non-judgmental descriptive titles" (WP:NDESC). To "commit" implies criminality. gobonobo + c 01:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion, I don't think everyone on the planet, much less on Wikipedia, agree that "to commit implies criminality". The definition of "commit" is simply to perform an act. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so the nom cited a source that says "now considered offensive because it suggests that doing this is a crime", but you're saying "That is your opinion"? Since when did material from a reliable source become just some Wikipedian's personal opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming there was consensus to phrase MOS:SUICIDE as it stands. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Based on the discussion in this 2021 RFC (linked from MOS:SUICIDE) the current phrasing is allowed, and other phrasings are also okay. Quoting User:Jehochman: "I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found." 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case it is not up to editors, the change (if any) will be done by a bot. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PacificDepths, could you explain this a little more clearly? So far, you've said that the current and proposed phrasings are allowed, so we must reject the proposed-acceptable phrasing in favor of the current-acceptable phrasing. Given that they're both acceptable, do you have any particular reason for preferring one acceptable phrasing over the other? Or did you mean to express something closer to "Neutral, either way is okay"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The category names are arbitrarily chosen by Wikipedia. We can adopt consistent, modern usage “died by suicide.” Two calendar years have gone by since the RFC, and usage has continued to evolve. What I recommended avoiding was a mass rush to rename everything without thoughtful consideration. This request is not a mass rush, and it seems thoughtful. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zxcvbnm's rationale. I find the reasons for the nomination nonsensical. Dimadick (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale that convinced me is that Wikipedia should follow evolving standards in language usage and be accurate. “Committed” implies an illegal act, but laws against suicide have been repealed in many places. It is more accurate (and neutral) to say “died by suicide” or “died of suicide.” [1]. I hope this helps. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That style guide recommends "killed themself" as the main replacement, with "died by suicide" as a distant third. Is there a reason something along the lines of Category:Ancient people who killed themselves or Category:Ancient people who took their own lives would be improper? I'm not sure why it has to be in the passive voice as a matter of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm, what makes you think this is a "distant third"? The AP stylebook that @Jehochman linked says "Alternate phrases include killed himself, took her own life, or died by suicide." It does not indicate that these have been listed in order of preference. MOS:SUICIDE lists several alternatives in alphabetical order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ancient suicides, et cetera, matching current categories in Category:Suicides by period‎ such as Category:Medieval suicides.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed by William Allen Simpson. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Ancient suicides, et cetera, too, it appears to be a simple case of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, shorter names would be clear and better. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This update is long overdue, in line with evolving usage. MOS:SUICIDE acknowledges that the term "committed suicide" can be offensive and that alternatives are valid. There's a good reason to avoid "commit" and no good reason to keep it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:SUICIDE, would also support WA Simpson's suggestion. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored but that doesn't mean we must go out of our way to cause offense. If we agree the two phrasings are equivalent in meaning but one has the potential to cause offense and/or stigmatize and/or harm, why affirmatively pick that one? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a more neutral term. "Committed" is a loaded term which to many people implies a sin or a crime, whereas "died" is a simple statement of fact. – bradv 03:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All categories are now tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Category:Ancient suicides, et cetera, too per WP:C2C (William Allen Simpson, Marcocapelle, LaundryPizza, Jehochman) and per MOS:SUICIDE. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong Venue/Conceptual Support There is not a consensus at the most recent the Village Pump RFC to remove "committed" although I would have iVoted for that change. MOS:SUICIDE underscores that decision while giving multiple alternative phrasing, without endorsing any. While I agree with the nominators intent, CFD shouldn't go against broader Wikipedia consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any broader consensus to carefully preserve this particular wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
True. Neither is there a consensus to remove it in MOS:SUICIDE though which means this becomes a personal preference issue, as evidenced by the other iVotes. Gaining consensus to change the manual of style to use less stigmatizing language (with maybe exceptions for direct quotations) would be ideal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, you've said "CFD shouldn't go against broader Wikipedia consensus", which implies that you believe changing this from one accepted wording to another accepted wording would somehow be going against a (non-existent) "broader Wikipedia consensus". If, having considered all the factors you're aware of, you personally think it would be better to change it, then it actually is okay for you to say that you think it'd be better to change it.
(I think that stigmatizing language is ultimately a question for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rather than the Manual of Style.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Committed suicide" is a perfectly apt and accurate terminology, and is also the commonly-used term. this is feel-good political correctness run amok. Zaathras (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Down with feel-good political correctness run amok! There should be a category for that thing itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are some people who feel really strongly about this, but they really do not appear to be the majority. And I'm really not sold on the merits here that there is stigmatization going on, which is the usual insistence of people who want to change the terminology. There absolutely is a stigma around suicide, but it's the suicide part that's the stigma, not the verb that's placed before it. I think trying to reduce stigma around suicide is noble, but this isn't the fix. SnowFire (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:C2C actually says (consistency with established tree name) is definitely a more compelling argument than what MOS:SUICIDE does not say (since there is no prohibition on "committed"). Based on this conversation though, there is not a clear preference amongst other editors and, if I'm being honest, my preference for the new name has everything to do with disagreeing with MOS:SUICIDE and nothing to do with ensuring easy reader navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing wrong with the phrase "commit suicide"; it's not that way because of criminality, but because it's an act performed by someone. Nobody thought the wording had anything to do with criminality before someone coined the euphemism "die by suicide"—and I do consider that a euphemism, since its purpose is to make something sound nicer by saying it in a roundabout way (and what could be more roundabout than phrasing it as though it merely "happened" to someone without any act or intention?). Worse, telling other people that they have to do it or else they're insensitive and offensive to anyone touched by suicide is high-handed culture warrior melodrama. If you don't want to describe a suicide in plain language, nobody forces you to—but don't force everyone else to abandon plain language because a euphemism is popular. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: would support Category:Ancient suicides as an alternative for the first category, and similar names for the others. I still object to "died by suicide" as a nonsensical euphemism, but referring to someone as "a suicide" is standard English, and consistent with some, perhaps most other words ending in "-cide" (although in the case of "homicide", I think it generally refers to the victim). For instance, in Dante, the "Wood of the Suicides" refers to its inhabitants, not to multiple acts of suicide. I don't think that this formulation works for all of the other categories listed above. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. 'regicide' is an example of a noun used both to refer to the act of killing the king, as well as a person involved in killing the king, e.g. List of regicides of Charles I. It's not a list of how many times Charles I was killed (obviously; normally speaking, a human being can only be killed once), but all people said to be involved in his killing. We could treat the word 'suicide' in the same way for categorisation purposes, although in this case it only refers to the person who ended their own life. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (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:James Acaster[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) 22:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT for a comedian and his performances. Everything in the category is already linked by a navbox template anyway. Bearcat (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:PERFCAT normally applies to a show category populated with biography articles, this is quite a different case. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. WP:OCASSOC could be an issue with individual performances in an eponymous category though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator comment: I also do not see the applicability of PERFCAT. Similarly named shortcuts like WP:PERFNAV could apply (that one to the navbox) but I was very careful to limit the topics to something where Acaster is defining: you would call these things "Acaster's stand-up special", "Acaster's podcast", "Acaster's book" and so forth. I'm happy to be pointed to guidance on when a category or navbox should be deleted as redundant to the other, but I don't see it at CLN. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Purge Hypothetical (TV series) feels like WP:PERFCAT WP:OCASSOC (since he was one of many actors) but the rest are Works by James Acaster, which is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: Hypothetical is a panel show (non-fiction) in which Acaster was one of two hosts (and there are no regular guests). — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the article and you're correct. iVote updated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2023 (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.

Belgian emigrants[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) 20:15, 6 May 2023 (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.

Fooian clubs/teams[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) 20:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
150 similarly named categories in floorball, handball, and rugby union
Nominator's rationale: Following other Category:Sports teams by sport and country and the renaming of football clubs in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 12. There are several Fooian rugby union clubs instead of teams categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Great Britain to the United Kingdom for the two mentioned above. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2023 (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:Emigrants from the United Kingdom to Transvaal Colony[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 26#Category:Emigrants from the United Kingdom to Transvaal Colony

Norman language migration in progress, can't be speedy deleted[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 to Category:User nrm-1. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: reason(s) for the proposed non-deletion are below. verdy_p (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The request was posted on my talk page, but not registered here by the submitter (User:Liz). It was initially made as a speedy deletion request. It is now registered here for discussion (it was not a valid speedy deletion requesty, as she did not submit the link for discussion and there was no link to oppose this request).
  • This should be kept, even if for now the Babel box code still incorrectly remaps the correct "nrf" codes for Norman, into the incorrect code "nrm" (whose conversion is in progress and asked since long).
    Babel should be fixed (without the code remapping) by importing existing babel messages into "nrf". The "nrm" user categories should be used for Narom, not Norman. Later the Norman wikipedia should be renamed, with a transitional remapping from "nrm" to "nrf" (for at least one year), then the remapping removed once the Narom wikis can be enabled and started (at least in Incubator).
    There was already warning notice in the "nrm" user categories before that request was made. User pages can already use "nrf" (even if "nrm" is still displayed and the "nrm" category is still incorrectly populated.
    Deleting such thing does not help making any progress to migrate all existing Norman contents currently using "nrm" to "nrf". We must start the migration as far as we can (even if there are other blocking changes, but most causes of blocking come from the contents to be first migrated).
    • Fixing Babel boxes to display the correct messages requires a few edits in Phabricator and moving (or duplicating transitionally) a few translation strings in translatewiki.net, it's not a long task to do this could be done in minutes (but requires a little work by site admins.
    • Some work is then needed in Commons (exactly like on Wikipedia) for the matching categories.
    • Translatewiki.net is already conforming (but displays since many years a warning for the Wikimedia violation made many years ago only in Norman Wikipedia and in Wikimedia Commons, when the Language Commity was still not operating and BCP 47 did not even had any code for Norman in its obsoleted RFC and the IANA database, and ISO 639-3 was still not published), as well as Wikidata (e.g. for its translated labels, but still not for its hosted interwiki links for Wikipedia), and all other non-Wikimedia wikis and sites. The decision to conform to BCP 47 in Wikimedia is applied almost everywhere and is a policy effective since many years for all new wikis created since ISO 639-3 publication. The migration started at thjat time (and was finished for a few language codes, with a long migration period, most "grand-fathered" BCP 47 codes have been converted, but still not Norman; multiple requests to add supprot for Narom have been blocked and stalled since too long)
    We must start the work to migrate existing Norman contents from "nrm" to "nrf" to free up the space for Narom (which is blocked since too many years, even if various users in Indonesia asked for its addition and support). The nrf-1 category should not even be empty (there are 3 users at least on this wiki).
    In summary I advocate for an exception to the "speedy" deletion, because there is a valid concern to keep it (with needed work still to be done, but this is matching what should be done already now to strictly follow the naming policies and solve the BCP 47 violation existing only in a few Wikimedia projects and complicating the correct standard support for BOTH Norman and Narom languages that are for now BOTH not well served). verdy_p (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacking things in the reverse order presented.
    Category:User nrf-1 clearly does not meet the requirements to be exempt from C1 (being a project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion), so, if nothing else below happens, delete it.
    We could in theory use MediaWiki:Babel-category-override to achieve the outcome the nominator seems to want, of {{#babel:nrf-1}} populating Category:User nrf-1 and Category:User nrm-1 being red.
    But we shouldn't do that, because that's putting the cart way before the horse - we should wait for the relevant changes on phabricator to happen first. From my experience working with Babel on Phabricator, that's likely much further off than the nomination presents it as.
    On the other hand, we currently have two duplicate trees Category:User nrm and Category:User nrf, which are covering the same language and should be merged with each other - we should do that merge leaving a redirect (which Babel will now follow automatically) to avoid the need for local special-case code. I personally don't care which way that merge happens.
    This is a giant wall of text that is impossible for anyone not already deeply involved with Babel stuff to follow. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 12#Babel category duplicates, where I tried to get the same thing done and it was closed as no consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how my CSD C1 tagging was invalid. Every night, I tag empty categories for deletion (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories). Every night for years now. I have never had anyone suggest that I had to submit an empty category link for "discussion". This tagging is a normal process that happens every day.
It's fine if you want to have a discussion about a category (although I wonder about the usefulness of discussing an empty category) but you should tag the category as part of a CFD before it shows up as an empty category. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 29 April 2023 (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:Salford City F.C. academy graduates[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should be upmerged to parent. Per past discussions we do not create categories for players of a football club's youth academy unless that team plays within the country's league system, which is not the case here. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2023 (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:Maccabiah Games footballers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Category:Maccabiah Games footballers

Category:Footballers at the 1965 All-Africa Games[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should be upmerged to parent 'competitors at <year> <games>' categories. Unlike multi-sport event competitor categories, such as Category:Competitors at the 1966 Asian Games or Category:Competitors at the 1971 Pan American Games, participants do not seem to be split often by sport for the African and Mediterranean Games (unless there are a large number of notable competitors, such as in athletics). There does not seem to be a strong need for these categories given how few articles they contain. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Overall competitor categories aren't always useful if there are hundreds of sportspeople in the category. It can be particularly useful to divide them for team sports such as football as they're less likely to be named in the sport article for the games compared with individual sportspeople so you would otherwise have no easy way to find out without checking every single person in the main category. Suonii180 (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suonii180: Well the overall competitor categories for these All-Africa Game have 57 and 65 articles, while the categories for the earlier two Mediterranean Games have 105 and 110. This is nothing compared to the 11,400+ competitors at the 2020 Summer Olympics, the 11,300 at the 2019 Asian Games or the 6,600+ at the 2019 Pan Am Games. As for finding lists of competitors in team sports, the articles in Category:African Games men's football squads are used for this purpose. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, we only need 'player' categories for major competitions. GiantSnowman 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Kante4 (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTDEFINING, similar to the Maccabiah Games above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2023 (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:Soccer players in St. Louis by club[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) 20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other categories for players by city and club exist in Category:Soccer players in the United States by club, or in fact in any subcategory of Category:Association football players by club. These players can already be found as subcategories of Category:Soccer in St. Louis and Category:Soccer clubs in St. Louis. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2023 (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:Soccer players from Simcoe County[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:Sportspeople from Simcoe County. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should be upmerged to Category:Sportspeople from Simcoe County. Two category trees already exist for soccer people in Canada by location: Category:Soccer people by Canadian province or territory and Category:Soccer players by city or town in Canada. This seems to be sufficient, we do not need another set of categories just by county, especially when only containing three articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2023 (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:Sweden men's international futsal players[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) 20:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are not a particularly useful categories, as most of the people in Category:Swedish men's futsal players, and all of those in Category:Turkish amputee football players, have played for their national team. In addition, no 'futsal/amputee players by national team' categories exist for other countries. Given the particularly few number of notable futsal/amputee football players, most of the articles will be national team players. This differs from football, where there are an extremely large number of notable players who have not played for a national team. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2023 (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:Outfield association footballers who played in goal[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) 20:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An outfielder playing in goal for a brief period in a single match of their career is not a defining characteristic. Similar in nature to the CfD for goalscoring goalkeepers. In addition, a list already exists on the topic. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2023 (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:Governorates of Ukraine[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) Qwerfjkltalk 13:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D, C2C, C2B per parent Category:Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Administrative divisions of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Vladis13 (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, it would not change much if it were a subcategory. The governorates would still be in the SSR subcategory, it would merely create an extra category layer that only contains a subcategory. Unfortunately I am not able to read Ukrainian to get a better understanding of the situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (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:Premier Soccer Alliance[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the World Indoor Soccer League article, the Premier Soccer Alliance was renamed to the World Indoor Soccer League in 1999. We do not need two category trees for the same league under different names. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - we only need one set of categories for each league, simply moved when the league changes name. GiantSnowman 21:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2023 (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 fired from Fox News[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) 20:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There were two nominations on the same day for the same category, first from Zaathras then quickly followed by Springee. But, as of this time stamp, all but Marcocapelle had replied to the newer one. So I'm just awkwardly gluing the two together under one heading. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not at all appropriate to categorise people on being removed from a job. This is not defining. Zaathras (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this request. See my nomination posted 5 minutes after this one. Springee (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it inappropriate? It’s WP:verifiable. These firings have been very high profile and have received extensive coverage in the media. إيان (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite verifiability in my deletion nomination, so this isn't a useful response. Zaathras (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I subsequently raised that issue though. There's often conflicting accounts about whether someone was fired or quit and it's often somewhere in between: Glen Beck appears to have quit more or less mutually, Sarah Palin appears to have had here contract not renewed, and Roger Ailes quit to avoid being fired. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an irrelevant red herring. Whether these people were fired, quit, or sang songs holding hands on heir way out the door has no bearing on the discussion. However one is separated, or separates oneself, from a job is not an acceptable categorization in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, you did cite that it was not at all appropriate. I asked why and you didn't address it, so this isn't a helpful response to my response. إيان (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone become notable because they were fired? If so, then it would be appropriate.  —Michael Z. 23:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: There is limited potential for growth in this category, it's relatively arbitrary as few people are likely to look for this specific grouping. I don't believe we have similar categories for other broadcasters. This category contains only 5 people. With the title of "fired" it comes across as disparaging of the named people in the category. Springee (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a duplicate nomination. إيان (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly overcategorizing, disparaging in intent. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it disparaging in intent? Because of the word “fired”? It can be changed to something else. إيان (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is a non-defining characteristic. "People convicted of ..." would be defining, but only if applicable of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not defining? Has there already been a discussion about this kind of thing? These are widely reported events that have substantially shaped the lives and careers of those involved. إيان (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be explained in the articles. So many people get fired once or multiple times in their career that just getting fired is nothing special. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The New York Times, The Guardian, Politico and probably others have published on how these cases represent a trend with Fox News. If the category should be deleted, perhaps a list page would be more appropriate for addressing this trend. إيان (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and the spirit of WP:PERFCAT. In many cases whether someone quit or fired is unclear and listing people by every job they left will create clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Fox News people. If they were notable for that, they will remain so, even if discontinued. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2023 (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:Professional Arena Soccer League[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) 20:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the Major Arena Soccer League article, the Professional Arena Soccer League was renamed to the Major Arena Soccer League in 2014. We do not need two category trees for the same league under different names. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all same tournament after a renaming, so we only need one category (this is the standard for football and most sports where the tournament/league name changes but it's the same underlying event). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - we only need one set of categories for each league, simply moved when the league changes name. GiantSnowman 21:59, 28 April 2023 (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:American Indoor Soccer Association[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) 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001), the American Indoor Soccer Association was renamed to the National Professional Soccer League in 1990. We do not need two category trees for the same league under different names. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - we only need one set of categories for each league, simply moved when the league changes name. GiantSnowman 21:59, 28 April 2023 (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/2023_April_28&oldid=1162012357"