Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 15 February 2025 (→Category:Drag Race Belgique contestants: Quick close as merge via script). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 6
February 8 >

February 7

Category:Deaths by person in Vatican City

Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a single redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Tatar dukes and mirzas

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parent is Nobility in Europe, and I think that this category would be more helpful if it were broadened to all nobility SMasonGarrison 22:09, 7 February 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:Turkic Christians

Nominator's rationale: There was a CFD that decided what Turkic FOO wasn't defining. SMasonGarrison 22:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tatar military personnel of World War I

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 22:06, 7 February 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:Drag Race Belgique contestants

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, but compounding that exception by splitting by season is a step too far. Per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic (the real defining category per WP:PERFCAT is Category:Reality drag competition contestants). Besides most of the articles are redirects anyway. --woodensuperman 15:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to nominate additional categories while the American equivalent categories (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_5#Category:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_contestants Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants) are being discussed. If they get merged, these will get merged. If they don't these won't.Naraht (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is different. Part of the argument there is the number of entries. This has five articles between the split category. --woodensuperman 15:36, 7 February 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:NFL players using CFL infobox

Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this is still in use. I've added a note to the category page in July 2024 and it is still empty. Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the original creator of this last year, because of a significant problem with some NFL players incorrectly using the CFL infobox due to a fustercluck of past user errors — because the NFL WikiProject had already created its own dedicated NFL infobox to replace the generic "gridiron" infobox, a user incorrectly assumed that all NFL players had already been moved to that infobox (but they hadn't) so that "gridiron" was only on CFL players anymore (but it wasn't), and thus unwisely moved the gridiron box to the CFL title instead of creating a new CFL infobox from scratch.
    The problem is smaller than it was last year, as many of the ones I caught at the time have been fixed, but it does still exist — but I no longer believe that a tracking category that has to be manually added to the articles would be the most effective way of dealing with it, because (a) one would have to notice the article (and know that the category even exists in the first place) in order to add it, and (b) the fact that it's manually added means it might not get removed from the page even after the problem was fixed, as I learned later last year by trying to deal with a similar manually-added maintenance category where considerably more than half of the contents had already been fixed long, long before, and were just never removed from the category when the problem that got them added to it in the first place had been resolved. So maintenance categories like this should really be added by maintenance templates rather than being directly added to articles, so that they automatically come off the page when the resolution of the issue facilitates the removal of the template.
    Again, the problem does still exist, but this hasn't actually been getting used to deal with it, so there's no real point in holding on to it if it's just not actually being utilized. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sects

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, two definitions of "sect" are provided, I suppose the category was intended for the second definition, but meanwhile it gets mixed up. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA and Jc37: pinging contributors to an earlier related discussion about cults. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle isn't this WP:CANVASSING? Its been suggested by pinging users here to contribute that it is canvassing. Nayyn (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endings 1-1499

more categories nominated
example of a manual move of an article
Nominator's rationale: merge, and manually move articles, at least up to the year 1500 this is a redundant category layer with only one or two subcategories (deaths and/or disestablishments). This is follow-up on this earlier discussion.
Note to closer: the previous discussion also contains instructions on how to implement the merge properly.
@Aidan721, LaundryPizza03, Fayenatic london, and Liz: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films scored by Surojit Cahtterjee

Nominator's rationale: Match article title Surojit Chatterjee, likely misspelling. Gotitbro (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Distance Education Accreditation Commission

Nominator's rationale: I believe we should rename the category Distance Education Accreditation Commission to Distance Education Accrediting Commission. This is the name of the accrediting body itself, and think the original category name, which seems to make sense, was done incorrectly. I raised this on the category talk page, and think raising it here may be better for community input and decisions. Sorry for the problem with the first wikilink, but I could not get it working correctly so linked this as an external link.. FULBERT (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seiurus

Nominator's rationale: Seiurus is now a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melanopareiidae

Nominator's rationale: Melanopareiidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People murdered in Vatican City

Nominator's rationale: There have been two people ever murdered in Vatican City (to my knowledge). It was as part of the same incident: the one guy in this category, and his wife. It's the Vatican City. There's what, 700 people there? The victim is himself notable for his position and history it seems a bit foolish to have just the one category when this is all that's ever going to be in here. Though, I'm not actually sure about how these categories work, so maybe it's OK to have this kind of category with only one member? I am unsure. If I am wrong apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trinidad State Trojans football coaches

Nominator's rationale: The Trinidad football program was discontinued in 1971 when the school's sports teams were still most commonly called "Trinidad" not "Trinidad State"; see https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-sentinel/164887068/. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economists by country and populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Saltbush Club

Nominator's rationale: Appears to violate WP:PEOPLECAT as a rather trivial, obscure WP:NONDEFINING aspect (see also WP:BLPCAT). The club has no Wikipedia article, and mention in the articles of the people included appears to be brief and unremarkable, regardless of the club's reputation. Per WP:DEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. This does not appear to hold true to any of the 'members'. We don't make categories merely to satisfy an urge to categorize things. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Integrated Resorts

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Casino hotel is the main topic. Overlapping topics. Rename to "Casino hotels...". –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the top category: merge or reverse merge, I do not know what the best terminology is but I checked a number of articles and they were all about a hotel including a casino. The subcategories should follow the top category in accordance with the merge direction. Also decapitalize to "integrated resorts" if that name is kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge, per Marcocapelle - Not sure either, but we obviously don't need both trees per WP:OVERLAPCAT. - jc37 11:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • An integrated resort is more than simply a casino resort. There is a difference between the two. An integrated resort features hotel space, a casino, convention space, dining, shopping and entertainment. A casino resort simply needs to only include hotel space and a casino. An integrated resort is a type of casino resort, but it is more than just a casino resort. Working in the industry myself, I can affirm that there is a difference between these two terms. --NevadaExpert (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is an issue of defining "integrated resort". What must be present for it to be an integrated resort? Hotel + casino + dining? Because many (if not all) casino hotels have that. I am OK with using "Integrated resorts" if we can correctly and accurately define it. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An integrated resort features hotel space, casino space, convention/meeting space, dining options, shopping and entertainment (such as a performance venue or resident shows). That is basically the criteria or what we in the industry call an integrated resort. The term was first coined in Singapore, but the industry at large has adopted the term broadly. NevadaExpert (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that different than a Resort? - jc37 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not every resort has those options I mentioned. There are resorts which do not feature a casino or entertainment options. It is different. NevadaExpert (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to see the distinction as well. Sounds a lot like a marketing term by people in the industry that probably should not be adopted for WP. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why do we care about what "other" options are present at a "resort"? We have Hotels, then Casino hotels, and now we're adding whether they have other entertainment or shopping options? Sounds an awful lot like list material. I'm also questioning the difference between Category:Resorts and Category:Integrated Resorts. Which seems like another instance of WP:OVERLAPCAT. This is starting to feel like WP:TNT might be appropriate for the whole "integrated resorts" tree. - jc37 15:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nature of the hospitality industry has changed. Hotels have changed. The hotels we had in Las Vegas fifty years ago were certainly different from what we have today. While integrated resorts originated in Las Vegas, the term was coined in Singapore. Is it more list material like you are saying? Absolutely it is. But it is an accurate description of the kind of resorts we are talking about. These categories will keep things on Wikipedia plus terminology on this subject up to date. Working in this industry myself, I feel that what we have on Wikipedia about these properties can be improved. One of the ways to do that is to be even more specific. If you have a property which features hotel space, a casino, dining, shopping, convention/meeting space and entertainment options, then it is certainly an integrated resort. NevadaExpert (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be. But that doesn't mean we should categorise the locations in that way. As you note, it's a list of criteria, that varies by location.
    I'm looking at Resort#Recreation, and it has many different kinds of resorts, including the "integrated resort" that you note. We simply don't need a bunch of parallel trees that are similar in this way. That's pretty much the definition of WP:OVERLAPCAT.
    I suggest creating a List page for this, so that each set of criteria can be explained for each Resort. Or in other words, to indicate what each resort offers.
    While I see that we have a List of casino hotels, it doesn't look like we have a List of resorts, integrated, or otherwise. - jc37 02:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be an option too. I do think that any property that is an integrated resort, that it would be noted in the article for purposes of clarity and accuracy. NevadaExpert (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based upon the above discussion, it would appear that: All "integrated resorts" are "casino hotels", but not all "casino hotels" are "integrated resorts". (integrated resort redirects to casino hotel.) This suggests to me that we should merge everything to the "casino hotels" cats. And allow for listification of those casino hotels which are integrated resorts to List of resorts (or List of integrated resorts, if wanted), at editorial discretion. This way, the features that distinguish an integrated resort from the rest of the casino hotels can be enumerated and explained on a single page for reader comparison. I'm not suggesting merging to Category:Resorts, because apparently whether or not a casino is involved, is the deciding factor there. Though I won't be opposed to a double merge to both trees (Casino hotels, and Resorts). - jc37 22:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An article for List of Integrated resorts is a compromise that I would find agreeable. However, it should be organized by country with potential subsections for states (the US, Australia) or provinces (Canada), etc.
    But to keep the article organized, we must be very clear as to what constitutes and integrated resort. It contains six components:
    1. Hotel
    2. Casino
    3. convention and/or meeting space
    4. shopping
    5. dining
    6. Entertainment (may be entertainment venue attached and/or a resident show
    Some additions may need discussion on the talk page which is fine. Some are harder to classify as integrated resorts than others. My point is that the page should not become disorganized. I can see unregistered users coming in and making nonsense additions. Any established user who would like to come on board with me on this topic would be deeply appreciated. All in all, this sort of article would help make Wikipedia more up to date on this issue and the topic of integrated resorts. Anyway, let’s keep each other posted and coordinate. NevadaExpert (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All good reasons why these should not be categories.
    Incidentally, this discussion is not preventing you from starting that List page at your own editorial discretion. - jc37 21:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could certainly do that when I have the time. But I would prefer to plan carefully and not rush these things. I have some ideas. NevadaExpert (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan footballers by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only 1 subcategory. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_7&oldid=1275928971"