Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

[edit]
  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
    1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

[edit]

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_July_18


July 18

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Futurama films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to its subcategory about season 5. This also categorizes categories with categories in a way that is likely better served by categorizing individual articles. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Broken Sword games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same logic with Monkey Island. The parent category currently contains only 2 articles. And if we merge, we'll get a total of just 9 articles. It makes navigation easier, but we also have to move all of this category's subcategories manually, because the bot doesn't do that. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monkey Island games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is small, and its parent category contains only 2 subcategories and 4 (3 now i think) articles. If we merged this with the other category it would make navigation easier, but we've got to add all categories to the parent category too, maybe I can just do that right now. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Therapy 2093

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: With one album already appropriately categorized in Category:Therapy 2093 albums and the only article related to the musician, this eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sultans of Bijapur

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The article of the higher level cat, Adil Shahi dynasty, was moved to Sultanate of Bijapur, of which there is already a higher level cat for, (or will be soon when CFDS renames Category:Bijapur Sultanate to Category:Sultanate of Bijapur) so this category should be merged with Category:Adil Shahi dynasty, as right now the higher up cat serves no purpose if it does not include the members of the dynasty, which are included here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistory by country

[edit]
  • A: Prehistoric Fooland, or
  • B: Prehistory of Fooland?
Nominator's rationale: Numerically, I do not see a major preference in catnames or main article titles, so a speedy rename per WP:C2C or WP:C2D will probably not apply, and we should have a full discussion. As this is an (indirect) follow-up to our recent CFR on Middle Ages by country (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Middle Ages by country), which resulted in a Rename all to Medieval history of Fooland, this precedent would favour option B. But the almost equally high frequency of Prehistoric Fooland including in main article titles should be taken into account. (A case could even be made that a debate should be had on which way WP:TITLECON should lean in the mainspace before we make our decision here, but we didn't do that for Middle Ages by country either). Whichever option we decide, I recommend leaving a redirect for all categories that we decide to rename, just like last time, in order to ease navigation and editing, and prevent duplication. NLeeuw (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to participants of previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Ham II, Omnis Scientia, and HouseBlaster: for your consideration. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Prehistoric Fooland Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, why is that your preference? NLeeuw (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest way to have a consistent naming scheme for all periods would be to have Prehistory of / Ancient history of / Medieval history of / Early modern history of / Modern history of / Contemporary history of Fooland, as I've argued previously. We've begun to move in that direction for medieval and early modern history.

    As NLeeuw rightly notes, though, we haven't really considered consistency with article titles in mainspace for those moves. If we did have mass RMs for the country articles in each of these categories, we might find it being argued that there should be consistency with the article titles Prehistory, Ancient history, Middle Ages, Early modern period, Modern era (which currently has an active RM for moving the title to Modern period) and Contemporary history. (There are corresponding category names for all of these, with one exception: Category:Modern history.) That could then result in a naming scheme (for article titles at first) of Prehistory of Fooland / Ancient history of Fooland / Fooland in the Middle Ages / Fooland in the early modern period / Fooland in the modern era or Fooland in the modern period or Modern history of Fooland (only the third of these seems very satisfactory to me) / Contemporary history of Fooland.

    With both those possible naming schemes in mind, I'm leaning towards B: Prehistory of Fooland. But it might be better to test the waters first with a mass RM for all articles following whichever of these two styles we think it would be better to change: Prehistoric [place – not necessarily a country] (examples here) or Prehistory of [place] (examples here). If a preference emerged for Prehistoric Fooland over Prehistory of Fooland it wouldn't be a disaster for the naming schemes I've suggested above, as prehistory could be treated as being outside history, which it is. Ham II (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak preference for option B, ultimately they are both well acceptable and it only matters that we are consistent. But given the outcome of the previous discussion it makes sense that we continue along the same line. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) equals year in page title

[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: nomination merged to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 13#Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) ≠ year in page title
Nominator's rationale: Better grammar; see . Courtesy pings to @Fayenatic london and LaundryPizza03. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 18 July 2024 (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.


Establishments in German cities by year

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is scope for growth in century categories, but year categories are not justified here. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some categories were not tagged; I will do so. If there are no further comments in a week, I would close this as merge/rename/delete as nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]