Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 24
October 24
[edit]Category:Operations against organized crime
[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: split Category:Operations against organized crime. Rename the rest as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime by country
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Austria
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in China
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Colombia
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in El Salvador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in El Salvador
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Honduras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Honduras
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in India
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in Ireland
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Italy
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Mexico
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in Pakistan
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Serbia
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in Spain
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organised crime in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organised crime in the United Kingdom
- Propose renaming Category:Operations against organized crime in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Law enforcement operations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there's also a parent Military operations by type, so the top category should rather be split to Category:Law enforcement operations against organized crime and Category:Military operations against organized crime. United States invasion of Panama would go in the latter, and at least 2024 Ecuadorian conflict, War on drugs in Ecuador and Operation Snowcap would go in both. – Fayenatic London 12:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's not unreasonable, since there is an important difference between military and law enforcement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Child pornography crackdowns
[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Actual contents are mostly law enforcement operations. Those that aren't should be purged and relocated to other subcategories of Category:Child pornography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Empires and kingdoms of foo
[edit]Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Empires and kingdoms of foo
Category:Unassessed vital articles
[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: deleted out of process. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category Category:Unassessed vital articles is a project page! Also, I don't understand New Nominations, but I am pretty sure there aren't any. It is used for WikiProject Vital Articles, so why is it a canidate for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellow i am here (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The above comment was malformed and is now fixed. Speedy delete per C4. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, this was within Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention, Category:Vital articles by quality and Category:Unassessed articles. It was tagged with {{db-c1}} on 17 Oct by MSGJ, saying "no longer in use, using Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention instead". At 20:10 on 24 Oct, LaundryPizza03 tagged it with {{db-c4}}, then Liz deleted it the same day. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Articles which need attention where I proposed that this category be merged with another — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Early abbots by century
[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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:5th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:6th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:7th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:8th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:9th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:10th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:11th-century abbots
- Propose deleting Category:12th-century abbots
- Nominator's rationale: the earliest non-Christian (Buddhist) abbot that we have an article about is Yishan Yining who lived in the 13th century. These categories don't contribute to navigation until we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. All Irish abbots of this period were Christian abbots and can be added as subcategories thereof. It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian". Wikipedia should reflect the real world and not get stuck too much in its internal organization. The real world is that there weren't Buddhist abbots in medieval Ireland, they were all Christian. This nomination is of course without objection to recreation once we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. > It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian".
- I never said that the individuals in the page don't belong in the Christian abbots category. I said that you shouldn't be conflating nationality and religion at the category level. Three things: I don't see why you're suggesting deletion, instead of merging. This deletion is going to break the abbot by nationality template. This seems premature, given that I asked you about this on your talk page. Mason (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw and Fayenatic london: what do you think of this? Better to have third-party input here. The discussion is in the first place about whether (medieval) Irish abbots should be a subcategory or a sibling of Christian abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well first of all, why would you delete these categories rather than upmerging them to Category:Medieval abbots? NLeeuw (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Since these have subcats for both Irish and Christian abbots by century, and are part of e.g. 12th-century religious leaders and 12th-century monks, it seems to me best to keep the hierarchy intact. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that Marco's point is that everyone in the Irish abbot tree is also a Christian abbot. I'd already tried to discuss this issue, but they're intentionally ignoring me. Mason (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes (to the first sentence), but we are not going to merge them because one is by nationality and one is by religion. Although for several centuries it would be factually correct to make Irish a subcat of Christian, that would be inconsistent with other parts of the hierarchies, and it would get messy to use that kind of parenting only where it fits. Even if there are some comparable precedents the other way, IMHO it's better to leave these as they are, i.e. siblings. Cf. the national Priests categories which we disambiguated by religion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. Then, given that the nominated Abbots parents hold these pairs of subcats as opposed to single subcats, I would also keep those. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you. For all the reasons you've listed. I think that there's benefits for navigation, and just requires content expertise to navigate the categories. Mason (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes (to the first sentence), but we are not going to merge them because one is by nationality and one is by religion. Although for several centuries it would be factually correct to make Irish a subcat of Christian, that would be inconsistent with other parts of the hierarchies, and it would get messy to use that kind of parenting only where it fits. Even if there are some comparable precedents the other way, IMHO it's better to leave these as they are, i.e. siblings. Cf. the national Priests categories which we disambiguated by religion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. Then, given that the nominated Abbots parents hold these pairs of subcats as opposed to single subcats, I would also keep those. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that Marco's point is that everyone in the Irish abbot tree is also a Christian abbot. I'd already tried to discuss this issue, but they're intentionally ignoring me. Mason (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, as suggested by NL?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Apart from Byzantine abbots there isn't anything specifically medieval about abbots. Should we then also create a separate category for medieval Christian abbots, and for medieval Irish abbots? I don't think so, the century categories seem to suffice. Having said that, I have not nominated Category:Medieval abbots and it's probably too late to add this now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Pages using the JsonConfig extension
[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. It is WP:SNOWing and because the category will continue to grow over the course of the week – making cleanup take longer – I am ending this one prematurely. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Pointless tracking category - will eventually include literally every
articlewith a citation. To implement this deletion, create MediaWIki:Jsonconfig-use-category with the text-
. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and implement deletion. A really unnecessary tracking category: all articles with at least 1 citation go there – we already have a template (and a category as well) for those with no citations. Also, not only articles are affected: "Pages using the JsonConfig extension" also has a subcategory called New York City Subway station articles with outdated ridership data and many templates and talk pages. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Alfa-ketosav. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I recently saw this pop up on multiple article talk pages and noticed it also appeared in some files. I do not see the use of such a broad tracker. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete not useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC).
- Note: This is happening everywhere by the look of it. I've been making the category hidden on other wikis, but maybe it needs WMF attention (if that's not an oxymoron). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC).
- Note: This is happening everywhere by the look of it. I've been making the category hidden on other wikis, but maybe it needs WMF attention (if that's not an oxymoron). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC).
- Comment is that why recent changes has been looking bonkers since yesterday? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what this would have to do with recent changes - normally implicit category additions don't show there. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's why I thought this was weird, I have checked the "Hide categorization of pages" preferences. I'll try resetting my RC settings to default. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what this would have to do with recent changes - normally implicit category additions don't show there. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete According to {{Tracking category}}, the purpose of this category is to "[..] track, build and organize lists of pages needing "attention en masse" (for example, pages using deprecated syntax), or that may need to be edited at someone's earliest convenience." This category is not collecting anything actionable (unless we want to delete all of the citations on Wikipedia[sarcasm]) so its usefulness is very limited. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, or rename to Category:Pages with citations.[Joke] Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Society of Ukrainian Progressors members
[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. There is unanimous agreement that the category in its current form is unsustainable. Unfortunately, there is no clear consensus on what the appropriate change should be. In these circumstances, a WP:BARTENDER close is usually applicable; when there is a debate between renaming and deletion, the alternative usually is the bartender's choice. However, given the rename option was really "repurpose the existing category" and it was raised late in the discussion, I find that there is BARTENDER-consensus to delete the category. If anyone wishes to manually add any of the members to other categories (such as Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians), they are welcome to (while, of course, observing policies such as WP:CATV). The current members of the category are Dmytro Doroshenko, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Symon Petliura, Mykola Vasylenko, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and Serhiy Yefremov. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Emptied: no refs. No such society. Mistranslation? --Altenmann >talk 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This is an empty category, it doesn't need a discussion. Next time, consider tagging it CSD C1. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Next time, consider not emptying the category beforehand. Discussion can be useful when you know which articles were in there. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Altenmann, I'm going to say it more bluntly. Please don't empty categories like this. We can't tell if there's a mistranslation or if the category has sources in another language, if we don't know who was in it. Mason (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I support the comments of Marcocapelle and Mason. For the record, the six biographies removed out-of-process by Altenmann are here: [1].
Maybe the last word should be "progressionists" like [2].– Fayenatic London 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- What's this "out-of-process" nonsense? The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources. Aren't we forgetting our most fundamental rule? --Altenmann >talk 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- You really need to consider the feedback you're getting here. "The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources." That's the problem. You removed them so how do you expect the CFD to go? I've rolled back the removal so other people can actually evaluate the category contents. Mason (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- "how do you expect the CFD to go?" - easily. Check in Wikipedia or in the internets whether such society exists or existed. --Altenmann >talk 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your reversal is a blatant violation of Wikipedia rules: WP:AGF and WP:V unreferenced information can be deleted at any time. Here are the bios in question, if someone questions my senses:
- You really need to consider the feedback you're getting here. "The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources." That's the problem. You removed them so how do you expect the CFD to go? I've rolled back the removal so other people can actually evaluate the category contents. Mason (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- What's this "out-of-process" nonsense? The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources. Aren't we forgetting our most fundamental rule? --Altenmann >talk 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Dmytro Doroshenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykhailo Hrushevsky added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykola Vasylenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Symon Petliura added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Serhiy Yefremov added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist 13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Volodymyr Vynnychenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
- Meanwhile I am restoring my deletions done in total agreement with Wikipedia rules. --Altenmann >talk 20:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you even brought this up for CFD if you are just going to make it difficult for wikipedians to temporarily evaluate the category. I've reverted the change and ask that you be patient. You're the one who made the nomination. Mason (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile I am restoring my deletions done in total agreement with Wikipedia rules. --Altenmann >talk 20:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The last word should be "Progressives", see User_talk:Aleksandr_Grigoryev#Category:Society_of_Ukrainian_Progressors_members. But in the same discussion, the category's creator accepts deletion. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's helpful to know. From that conversation it seems like merge to Category:Ukrainian_Democratic_Party_(1904)_politicians is a viable solution. Mason (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- No; these are not the same establishments. YOu cannot categorize unless the articles say so that they are, i.e., you cannot do an automatic merge. --Altenmann >talk 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's helpful to know. From that conversation it seems like merge to Category:Ukrainian_Democratic_Party_(1904)_politicians is a viable solution. Mason (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the premature emptying issue is resolved, do people support a merge to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians (as suggested by Mason)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me whether these two organizations were interconnected or synonomous. By all means add articles to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians insofar they mention membership of that party. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing anyone who supports the category's continued existence, so discussion on whether it should be deleted or merged is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rename? Appears to be Товариство_українських_поступовців for which we don't have an article, although we have the inaccurate(?) redirect: Society of Ukrainian Progressionists. I would suggest "Progressives" as the term, [as Feynetic says above] but perhaps we could get advice from someone with strong Ukrainian skills. Also it would be nice to have at least a stub article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC).
<sigh> Comment. The discussion is thoroughly derailed. Not a single person in this category has refs that confirm the classification. Hence the deletion in the first place. --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines
[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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NEOLOGISM, Second Ladies are not a thing in Philippine politics. We are not like the United States which uses such term. Second Ladies/Gentlemen at best are just a synonym for the Vice President's spouse, unlike the First Lady/Gentlemen who actually serves a role for being the host at the Malacanang Palace and is distinct from the Spouse of the President of the Philippines Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, this category has been emptied by the nominator, Hariboneagle927. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- For full disclosure, there were four entries under it Mans Carpio, Elenita Binay, Celia Díaz Laurel, and Loi Ejercito Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This category is spouses of the vice president, that's a defining feature regardless of whether the role is official. Please don't remove pages from categories like this. I've reverted you removals. Mason (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this is plain neologism. You would be hard pressed to see consistent/sustained usage of the term "Second Lady/Gentleman" by Philippine national broadsheets or government agencies. First Lady and Gentlemen are likewise not a formalized institution but unlike Second Lady, the term (Second Lady) is not used by the media or the government.
- The argument is "Second Ladies" as a role does not exist in the Philippine context. Sure the category could be renamed as Category:Spouses of vice presidents of the Philippines to accurately portray its member pages. We do not created fictitious roles and present it as fact, regardless if official or not. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- To re-emphasis the role of First Lady and Second Lady is distinct from the President's and the Vice president spouses. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with renaming to Category:Spouses of vice presidents of the Philippines. Mason (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- To re-emphasis the role of First Lady and Second Lady is distinct from the President's and the Vice president spouses. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This category is spouses of the vice president, that's a defining feature regardless of whether the role is official. Please don't remove pages from categories like this. I've reverted you removals. Mason (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- For full disclosure, there were four entries under it Mans Carpio, Elenita Binay, Celia Díaz Laurel, and Loi Ejercito Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Local circumstances, both with respect to the question whether it is a defining characteristic, as well as with respect to the name of the category, should play an important role in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Two of the four entries are notable for being elected politicians, one is a theater actress and Mans Carpio is noted for being involved in a smuggling scandal and his membership in the wider Duterte family who had Rodrigo Duterte, his father-in-law. None of the given citation asserts they held the role of "second lady/gentleman". Again we are talking about the fictitious role. I understand in some context such as the US context its synonymous to the vice president's spouse.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know anything about Philippine politics myself but I think your arguments are good and this should only be opposed if spouse of vice president is a defining characteristic in the Philippines after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Two of the four entries are notable for being elected politicians, one is a theater actress and Mans Carpio is noted for being involved in a smuggling scandal and his membership in the wider Duterte family who had Rodrigo Duterte, his father-in-law. None of the given citation asserts they held the role of "second lady/gentleman". Again we are talking about the fictitious role. I understand in some context such as the US context its synonymous to the vice president's spouse.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- To further emphasize, there is no such role as "second lady" in the Philippine context, so the question whether it is a defining characteristics for its member articles is moot. Being a spouse is a different thing and if the intent of the article is to cover vice president spouses then a rename should be in order.. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more participation to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Events at Yankee Stadium
[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 but purge the seasons. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: OCVENUE is not policy; we are not bound by it. Also, bad nom to only nominate this and none of the other venue categories pbp 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep WP:OCVENUE makes an exception for "how a specific facility is regularly used" and the contents here are dominated by the New York Yankees and New York Giants (i.e. how it's regularly used) so the location seems defining. (It's not clear to me that there is a still a consensus for WP:OCVENUE generally but that's not really important here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no reason Yankee Stadium should be the exception. Mason (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not the exception; there are several other venues with categories. pbp 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- The rest can be nominated. Mason (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not the exception; there are several other venues with categories. pbp 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no reason Yankee Stadium should be the exception. Mason (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OCVENUE does make a distinction between specific events and regular use. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearcat. Moreover, a season is not an event and all of the season articles should be removed, regardless of the result of this discussion.--User:Namiba 18:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Those should remain. A season is a collection of events/games pbp 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your definition of a sports season as a singular event is contrary to widely established consensus on Wikipedia. A season includes far more than just "a collection of events/games." It involves obtaining players and much more. Moreover, the games themselves did not occur solely in one place. They occurred in dozens of stadiums.--User:Namiba 18:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Yankees' home games occurred in Yankee Stadium, so I don't see what the problem is. You make it as though NONE of a Yankees' season occurred in Yankee Stadium, which is incredibly ridiculous. And I don't care what consensus is, consensus can change. I don't have to goose-step to it pbp 12:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your definition of a sports season as a singular event is contrary to widely established consensus on Wikipedia. A season includes far more than just "a collection of events/games." It involves obtaining players and much more. Moreover, the games themselves did not occur solely in one place. They occurred in dozens of stadiums.--User:Namiba 18:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Those should remain. A season is a collection of events/games pbp 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearcat and Mason. No one has presented a cogent argument why Yankee Stadium should be an exception from WP:OCVENUE. It's a stadium in NYC where NYC baseball teams have routinely hosted games. What's exceptional about that? Additionally, I agree with Namiba that's it's nonsensical to categorize an MLB team's season as if it took place entirely in one venue. Carguychris (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as with recent CfD's on event-by-venue categories: 1 & 2. It's a perfectly good defining characteristic. The cited clause of OCVENUE has no rational basis. Agree with removing the season articles though, per Namiba's comment that a season is not an event. Toohool (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Without the seasons, there are very few events in this category.--User:Namiba 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Added more articles to the category. Toohool (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- The stated reason for discouraging categorizing events by venue is that the categories would become too large, per WP:OCVENUE. I'm unclear if the second paragraph of the editing guideline still has community consensus but, even amongst those that support the concept, I don't think category size is the the real concern. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Without the seasons, there are very few events in this category.--User:Namiba 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep As per Purplebackpack89 and RevelationDirect. Boxing matches are categorized by venue and I see no reason why a general category should also exist. Sam11333 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note this category confuses two different stadiums, both of which are named Yankee Stadium. Most of the events in this category occurred in Yankee Stadium (1923), not the present stadium.--User:Namiba 13:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- If kept, a category split certainly make sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair other venues have been rebuilt but have just one category for events. MGS and Wembley Stadium to name just two. Sam11333 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep a category.--User:Namiba 17:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's true, but if we agreed that this category was defining, I don't think whether or not to split it would be that controversial. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep a category.--User:Namiba 17:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair other venues have been rebuilt but have just one category for events. MGS and Wembley Stadium to name just two. Sam11333 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- If kept, a category split certainly make sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note this category confuses two different stadiums, both of which are named Yankee Stadium. Most of the events in this category occurred in Yankee Stadium (1923), not the present stadium.--User:Namiba 13:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to delete the category, but if kept should it be purged of season categories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Purge seasons articles and subcategories, they are not about the venue. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can the editors who support keeping this category explain how it helps navigation? Why not merge into Category:Sports competitions in the Bronx?--User:Namiba 17:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It helps readers navigate between events that have been held at Yankee Stadium. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- The general concept of "place" is always defining. For small towns, we'll marge different sports into one category, while medium sized cities will have sports specific breakdowns. One isn't more or less defining, it just depends on how much diffusion is appropriate given the number of articles to avoid WP:NARROWCAT. For major cities, using a more specific defining location is a useful way to diffuse categories to aid navigation. (Whether you agree or not, I hope that helps clarify.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I generally agree but, in this case, we already diffusing by borough. The Bronx category is not particularly overpopulated.--User:Namiba 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per RevelationDirect. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Geography of the Republic of Hawaii
[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation, and its current entries don't actually belong in the category, since they're about the current state of Hawaii. If we had articles particularly focusing on the Republic of Hawaii's geography (such as its administrative subdivisions) this might be useful... but we don't. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The two members appear to be the only pages added by the category creator, who is not currently active. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Sherbrooke 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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Sherbrooke Canadiens to Category:Ice hockey teams in Sherbrooke
- Propose merging Category:Sherbrooke Jets to Category:Ice hockey teams in Sherbrooke
- Nominator's rationale: Small categories (just the article and a subcategory for players) which hinder navigation. Both are already in Category:Defunct ice hockey teams in Quebec. If anyone feels like doing a mass nomination, the vast majority of sub-categories here could probably be merged as well.--User:Namiba 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- '
Oppose.' This is a well thought out category structure: player categories go in team categories, which go in locational team supercategories. I would suggest creating Category:Ice hockey teams in Sherbrooke to contain these but not deleting them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- Per WP:EPON "Eponymous categories should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." There are not and will never be enough directly related articles for these defunct minor league teams to justify their existence.--User:Namiba 16:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, on looking at the other categories, I realize I'm just wrong about this. Merge is the correct answer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:EPON "Eponymous categories should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." There are not and will never be enough directly related articles for these defunct minor league teams to justify their existence.--User:Namiba 16:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Selectively merge (move the subcategories directly to Category:Ice hockey in Sherbrooke), the players subcategories suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Afghanistan)
[edit]Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Afghanistan)
Category:Brunel University London
[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Brunel University London to Category:Brunel University of London
- Nominator's rationale: The university has changed name after joining the University of London, see Brunel University of London. Elshad (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Does this need a full nomination? Surely it could have been done at Speedy with the whole category tree. There's umpteen precedent for renaming categories when an institutuion's name changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy per C2D. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support but this is not eligible for Speedy, as it has not changed its name but only added a trading name.[3] – Fayenatic London 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Universities tend to do that this way rather than formally amending their charter every time the branding department comes up with something anew. We shouldn't draw a distinction to require a full discussion every time one changes and the article is moved uncontroversially. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:History of Landskrona by topic
[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of Landskrona by topic to Category:History of Landskrona
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only four subcategories, and after the merge the target will only have 6 entries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support: fair enough, no other cities in Category:Histories of cities in Sweden have one of these, and it's too thin to be a valuable part of Category:History by city and topic. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Centuries in Landskrona
[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Centuries in Landskrona to Category:History of Landskrona
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Fair enough. There used to be others but they were merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_12#Centuries_in_Landskrona. This nomination would remove Landskrona from Category:History of the Øresund Region by period, but that's OK, it will still be within Category:History of the Øresund Region. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II
[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Main article uses this spelling variant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment the countries most obvious in this area are english variant spelling locations (it wasnt simply the US presence that were components of the action) suggest that both the article and category are given the credit of the non-us spelling JarrahTree 05:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment as the inconsistency across categories exist, please note that I have posted directly about this to the Australian noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Usually_under_the_radar JarrahTree 06:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK but redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.