Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LaundryPizza03 (talk | contribs) at 07:39, 26 January 2025 (→January 24: moved to relevant discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 23
January 25 >

January 24

Set theorists by nationality

Nominator's rationale: The top-level category is not currently too big. If it gets too big, it would be better to divide by field of study. Nationality is not a very relevant property of mathematicians, and some of the most tedious and unproductive discussions on mathematician bios have been over which nationality gets to claim them. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Side note: These cats are recent creations, just a day or two ago. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Many of the bigger subcategories of Category:Mathematicians by field are subdivided by nationality, and this can be parallel to a subcategrization by subfield. According to WP:PETSCAN, there are 112 items in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wish they weren't, to be honest. Do we have to repeat the mistake here just because it's made in other fields? (Also, I'm particularly leery of this one because of Georg Cantor and Kurt Gödel, both of whom have been subject to these distasteful nationalistic claim-warrings.)
Alternatively, where would be a good venue to discuss whether this sort of subcat is a good idea in general? --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my specific concern is mathematics, so if it's to be a WikiProject I would think it would be WT:WPM, but it's true that the natural sciences probably have similar dynamics (not much relevance to the work; lots of contributors with ambiguous or complicated nationality). Maybe it's a Village Pump issue? Anyway I'll notify WP Math (neutrally) about the instant discussion; maybe someone will have ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Not a defining intersection. All of these picky little intersection subcategories make it very difficult to categorize articles because you have to remember or look up every time which intersections exist and then spread what should be a single defining characteristic (set theorists) over all the different intersections (especially as academics tend to have multiple nationalities: where they are originally from, where they were educated, where they have held long-term jobs...) Merge the others too as/when they are nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rough consensus that these categories should not exist, but should we then split by century?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to this CfD., and can be done independently of it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California

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]

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]

Category:Experts on refugees

Nominator's rationale: I stumbled on this category when I stumbled on the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert), and I saw a tangent about this category. While it is true that many people on Wikipedia are widely considered as experts in their subject, there are only three categories named "Experts on...": those are for terrorism, North Korea and refugees. Other categories on specialism would be like Category:Psephologists (not "experts on elections") or Category:Seismologists (not "experts on earthquakes") I looked at the articles in this category, and there is a mixture of activists and academics. Both of these can be problematic when we have a category on expertise. If the category was named "pro-refugee activists", that seems better to me, because it is about their position, rather than expertise. If a pro-refugee activist is not academically qualified, I feel that opens the way to having anti-refugee activists also having to be in the category of "experts", as both will be known for activism on the subject, and both will have no academic credentials to prove it. When it comes to academics, obviously they do not pin their colours to the mast quite like activists, but there are also highly qualified people who are known for writings that criticise migration and asylum. Those would fall under the banner of "experts on refugees", and would probably lead to edit wars on exactly who qualifies as an expert. TLDR: Category mixes activists and academics. Should they be separated? Category is based on expertise, which is subjective. In the case of unqualified activists, the category could also be applied to anti-refugee activists, as the category only mentions unquantifiable "expertise", not position. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 8 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) 04:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that creating a category does not need discussion, but merging a category does.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab Nationalist Movement breakaway groups

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]

With what and why? Charles Essie (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Charles Essie's most recent proposal? I am not seeing Marcocapelle's comments as an objection to renaming if kept, though he clearly prefers a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If not kept, merge to Category:Eponymous categories? Should we handle this in a wider nomination, or should we start with removing this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli settlers

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only 1-3 articles in these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Nazi propaganda

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what is supposed to go in here vs say, the parent category neo-Nazi publications, and the category does not make it clear. The Category:Nazi propaganda, which this is clearly modeled off of, contains wartime propaganda, which makes sense. Given how neo-Nazis operate all of their publications can be understood as propaganda so I am unsure as what the difference between these two categories is supposed to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's updated proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elements of fiction

Nominator's rationale: The new name I'm moving to has previously been deleted. However this category only is for things that are fictional and there are also 5 subcategories that already use "Fictional elements" instead, so why use this name instead? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the IUPAP Early Career Scientist Prize

Nominator's rationale: Minor early-career award, not lead-worthy, not defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category as I belive it is a useful "basket" to collect the biographies of all the young talents that have received this IUPAP prize—IUPAP is after all the one and only international organisation overarching all disciplines of physics. Many of these people are potentially becoming the next stars in their respective fields of physics.

Regards Bibliophilen (talk)

Defunct WikiProjects

Propose deleting the following categories:

Various "participants" categories for defunct WikiProjects. Delete per prior precedent. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories tagged and authors notified where still active. It was funny that it turns out one of these was created by myself - I have no memory of doing so, and will let it go through the seven-day discussion with the others rather than G7-ing. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What happened to the WikiProjects? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
They were marked as defunct (in Category:Defunct WikiProjects). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an editor who spent a fair amount of time years ago assessing the status of all existing WikiProjects, the status of a WikiProject can easily change over time. If these are deleted, it shouldn't be a "forever" type of deletion in case editors want to revive the project. It also might be wise to post a notice about this discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Project I was working on that's on this list, the "Category" just relates to having a little box on my user page. That seems fun but also silly and pointless. Let them all die. Salamurai (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Marino work group

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liechtenstein work group

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican

Nominator's rationale: Nest of ambiguously-named categories containing a grand total of two pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about economies by country

Nominator's rationale: delete, I was planning to propose renaming from "works" to "books" per actual category content, but the subcategories are already directly in Category:Economics books and one of them is nominated below, so this category does not add much value at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about the economy of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of the category when some more articles are available. The only article is about economic history, hence the history targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests to article List of guests on The Joe Rogan Experience
Nominator's rationale: The category as applied fails WP:CATDEF in most cases. Someone appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience is not defined by that appearance; it's just one of many talk shows that they attended one time. The category should be listified. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually came here because I felt the category should be proposed for deletion. In the realm of over-categorization, this category violates the Performers_by_production characteristic. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per @Kingturtle's rationale above. Rift (talk) 06:39, 24 January 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:Anime and Cartoon television

Nominator's rationale: What even is this category supposed to be? Do I even have to explain why it's so bad? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - judging by the pages in the category it appears that it is supposed to be for television channels that broadcast anime and cartoons, but that's not obvious at all by the current name. I do think that such a category could be useful though. I don't have any ideas for a new name, so I'm open to ideas, but it should make it clear what the scope is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free conventions

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. The only child category is Free festivals SMasonGarrison 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hazardous air pollutants

Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming analogous to Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention. Other renamings were considered (albeit not advocated for: "I can't think of a way to rename the category to make it make sense. (Regulated Hazardous air pollutants)?? (USEPA Hazardous air pollutants)??") on the talk page all the way back in 2007. Preimage (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @A876 (original talk page poster) in case you want to weigh in here. Preimage (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Not seeing opposition to the rename if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. too US-centric. a very small number of editors might get very excited about initiating new categories for their own countries of residence and/or interest, and then the community would be impeded by dozens of very new and very fragmented categories for this. Sm8900 (talk) 02:22, 17 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) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_24&oldid=1271899823"