Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 29

• Propose deleting Category:Golden Raspberry Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This and variations have been deleted in the past per WP:OCAWARD, may even qualify as a speedy? See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_22#Category:Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners, Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete something like this? There are many people who have won the Razzies and I just want to list who has won at least one of them. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't see why we should get rid of it because it was removed in the past. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally a criteria for speedy deletion Template:Db-g4, which even bypasses the need of a discussion such as this. Be grateful you were granted the courtesy of one. Zaathras (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Vinnylospo (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It meets the criteria for deletion, and has been deleted in the past for appropriate reasons. Drdpw (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Winners can be added to the article if they aren't already. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a satirical award that is covered in major news media every year, numerous — uh — winners have accepted it, and quite a few of them showed up in person at the awards ceremony to accept it in person. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good arguments for notability of the article, not so much this category. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the past discussions I linked to above, one of the recent results was "listify, then delete." The topic of Razzies are notable, even in list form. But categorizing people by winning an award for (perceived) badness in film is not a defining or meaningful characteristic. Category criteria is not the same as article criteria. See WP:COPDEF. Zaathras (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras, someone just added [[Category:Saturday Night Live hosts]] to Donald Trump. There's also [[Category:American people of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)]] with Biden, Bush, Trump, and three people I'd have to look up. Those categories don't seem more defining or meaningful as this one to me, based on "not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization". (I normally ignore categories being added to and deleted from that page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Also, you don't have to wrap categories in nowiki tags, just stick a colon at the beginning, e.g. [[:Category:Saturday Night Live hosts]] renders as Category:Saturday Night Live hosts - -clickable, but does not categorize the page we're on as such. Also also, the SNL category is up for deletion now, and I am considering requesting that the creator be banned from further creations. Zaathras (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of world leaders tend to be poorly categorized because they're involved with so many things that would be defining for other people, but clearly aren't to them. So, even when the category itself is fine, it just isn't meaningful in those cases. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, this category in various guises has been nominated and deleted repeatedly before. It keeps coming back and here it is again. Nothing has yet changed about its problems. It is rarely defining, often not notable and frequently isn't mentioned on the articles it ends up on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  • I'll never be accused of being a category expert, so maybe I shouldn't be here. But I don't see the point of a category that merely pulls information from a group of list articles, consolidating it into another "list". That's largely just information redundancy, and cost exceeds nonzero reader benefit.
  • Anybody who knows me will tell you I'm all about process, often maddeningly so to other editors. If this was a process violation as asserted above, I !vote SNOW Delete on that basis alone, and my preceding bullet point is moot.
  • What might make a little more sense: Category:Golden Raspberry Award, its members being the set of Wikipedia articles about the Golden Raspberry Award. I dunno. That's a different category discussion, obviously, since there is not currently any category to discuss. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it’s good to categorize this stuff as they did win an award. Yes it’s an ironic award but it’s still an award. If you want, I could be in favor of making it more defining. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per WP:G4. This doesn't pass WP:OCAWARD. It's certainly possible to accidentally recreate a deleted category with slightly different wording, in this case the cat name is exactly the same as past iterations so a notice should have popped up. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:John Steinbeck Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD: Seems like a relatively niche award and receiving it is not a defining characteristic for the vast majority (if not all) of the recipients (the award is not even mentioned in the article for most of them). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles sure don't treat it as defining, per WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ikusaka, Nagano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article, an an article about a national park, both of which are already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful category, for grouping of articles about Japanese municipalities, with links also to equivalent categories in other language Wikipedias. Please find something else to do rather than (proposal of) deletion of useful content and wasting of time. Same for other Japanese municipality-related listings here by the same User, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this does not aid navigation. Villages as small as this hardly ever have a category on their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cities and towns in Kiphire district to Category:Cities and towns in Nagaland

Nominator's rationale: Category containing just one article. Unhelpful for navigation. Merge to parent, already categorised in other parent. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can I understand the rational for merging? If it is because there is only one related article, then do we have any guidelines saying we shouldn't create a category with one article and with the possibility of inclusion of many more articles as and when they are created? Such creation helps users to categorise easily instead of creating the articles in a broader category.

It's good to be streamlined rather than waiting for symptoms to appear to take actions. Pls note, I am not saying we should create empty categories! Thaejas (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Kiphire district, without prejudice to recreation when a few more articles can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Artists represented by Shannon Associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEF: The talent agency by whom an artist is represented/managed is not defining charateristic (the talent agency doesn't have an article either). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is WP:OCASSOC and definitely seems non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films with a limited theatrical release (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Is the fact that a film had a limited theatrical release a defining characteristic? DonIago (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Modular firearms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is zero reasoning behind what firearms are included here - almost every modern firearm would be deemed "modular" under the reasoning given yet only a select few are included here. A completely nonsense list - an example of LISTCRUFT. Elshad (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Christianity in Sussex to Category:Religion in Sussex
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Sussex to Category:Religion in Sussex

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Most content is at the level of East Sussex and West Sussex, so these are not currently helpful for navigation. Leave redirects to discourage re-creation. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: a logical alternative would be to place Category:Churches in Sussex, Category:Diocese of Chichester, Category:Monasteries in East Sussex and Category:Monasteries in West Sussex into Christianity in Sussex. However, that would still be a fairly sparse layer. Also, Category:Christianity in England by county is mainly by current rather than former counties, and Sussex is in Former counties of England. The only other former-county sibling like this is Christianity in Yorkshire, which at least has more content, including a Christianity sub-cat for each riding. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Churches in Sussex can be deleted instead of merged because both subcategories are already in East and West Sussex. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the Diocese of Chichester and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton both cover the whole of Sussex so I wonder whether it wouldn't be a better idea to upmerge Category:Religion in Sussex instead of Category:Christianity in Sussex. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Category:Indian People's Theatre Association people

• Propose merging Category:Balloons (entertainment) to Category:Balloons

Nominator's rationale: Mixture of various topics with an odd disambiguation. Main section in Balloon no longer exists, instead having multiple subsections about various uses for decoration or toys. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, the category's parents Category:Entertainment, Category:Consumer goods and Category:Inflatable manufactured goods should also be moved over. That does not happen automatically. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Nineveh to Category:Nineveh and Category:Nineveh archaeologists (or Category:Archaeologists of Nineveh)

Nominator's rationale: This is not a people category per WP:COPSEP. Subcat can then be added to Category:Archaeologists by region of study. --woodensuperman 12:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on creating a subcategory. But Nineveh is a city, not a region. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A subcat of Category:Mesopotamian archaeologists then? --woodensuperman 13:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The correct existing parent is Category:Archaeologists of the Near East. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What should the new category be called?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon relister's question: Category:Archaeologists of Nineveh sounds more natural to me than Category:Nineveh archaeologists. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me! --woodensuperman 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Joseon scholar-officials to Category:Joseon scholars and Category:Joseon government officials

Nominator's rationale: I think we should split this category, as a non-defining intersection. There's no parent scholar-officials Mason (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there is also an article Scholar-official. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I do not see Marcocapelle's comment as an objection to the split – if you (Marcocapelle or just a random passerby) object please say so :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to oppose on the basis of WP:OVERLAPCAT, this proposal will result in two categories with almost the same content. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These people aren't 'officials', and they aren't 'scholars'. They are the ruling people, a social cast mostly hereditary, using the examination system as a "just cause" for their power. The compound word "scholar-officials" is the usual scholarly denomination for these people. Pldx1 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the objections?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Pitcairn Islands people convicted of rape to Category:British people convicted of rape and Category:Pitcairn Islands criminals

Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category because there's no parent category Pitcairn Islands criminals, and I think that creating a parent category right now would just be redudant Mason (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category is legitimate, although there are questions about what categories it should be under. I now think it shouldn't be under "British people convicted of rape" because people from the British Overseas Territories aren't classified as British people on Wikipedia, there are various categories relating to these territories. PatGallacher (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Pitcairn Islands criminals and Category:Sex offenders from British Overseas Territories. Pitcairn Islands the least populous territory in the world, with only 35 people as of the latest census. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Different suggestions; which one should we go with?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The islands have/had a particular issue with sexual offences, with three in it now all senior administrators. So set up Category:Pitcairn Islands criminals, or leave it as itis. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Johnbod's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's definitely narrow but, given the island's small population and the 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, the category is defining and there's not a great merge target. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Washington Football Team currentteam parameter articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:Washington Commanders currentteam parameter articles, the current name of the team. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should never be any further use of this since the team was renamed. There are no other categories for old NFL team names either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was not tagged; I will do so. Thoughts on the suggestion to keep a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment: Keep as a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category seems to only be added by Template:Infobox NFL biography, if that is the case, not only is a redirect not useful, it's completely pointless and a misunderstanding of why that category exists. If it's being added by something else (which isn't documented or linked from), then please explain. Gonnym (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gonnym. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament Final Four venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. This is a clear example of sorting a venue by an event it hosted. User:Namiba 22:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the 2nd paragraph of WP:OCVENUE no longer has a community consensus, the 1st and 3rd still do. Categorizing a venue by every event is non-defining and will lead to clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any opposition to deletion or suggestions for a merger.--User:Namiba 16:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball venues to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball

Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not help navigation. All articles are already in basketball venues category so a dual merge is not needed. User:Namiba 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the 2nd paragraph of WP:OCVENUE no longer has a community consensus, the 1st and 3rd still do. These are all multi event stadiums so this isn't defining, like a purpose built facility would be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:GMA Network personalities to Category:GMA Network people

Nominator's rationale: "Personalities" is redundant with people. There is no reason to have this category which implies to cover "actors and singers" when "people" apply just fine. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The merge target is probably meant to be Category:GMA Network (company) people. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as Category:Filipino television personalities means presenters, whereas people includes other company roles. – Fayenatic London 12:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:ABS-CBN personalities to Category:ABS-CBN people

Nominator's rationale: "Personalities" is redundant with people. There is no reason to have this category which implies to cover "actors and singers" when "people" apply just fine. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as Category:Filipino television personalities means presenters, whereas people includes other company roles. – Fayenatic London 12:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably the term "personalities" is too vague, but that would be a problem of the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures by year of demolition to Category:Buildings and structures by year of destruction

• Category:Buildings and structures by decade of demolition to Category:Buildings and structures by decade of destruction
• Category:Buildings and structures by century of demolition to Category:Buildings and structures by century of destruction
• Category:Sports venues by year of demolition to Category:Sports venues by year of destruction

Nominator's rationale: This category branch was originally intended to be the opposite of 'Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion', i.e. to categorise buildings by the date they ceased to exist. However, the root category Category:Demolished buildings and structures at the top now indicates 'that were deliberately demolished'. Indeed, demolition normally implies cases where a building has been deliberately demolished by humans. However, buildings can also be destroyed by accidental fire, natural disaster, or simply crumbling from old age. In the current form, however, all these cases should not be included in this branch. But there are no other "by date" alternatives for them, so they are probably placed in this category anyway, even though the title contradicts that. I think this branch is unnecessarily narrow, and it would be right to expand it to include any kind of building destruction. The same applies to every nested category, as well as Category:Buildings and structures by decade of demolition, Category:Buildings and structures by century of demolition, Category:Sports venues by year of demolition branches. By the way, on Wiki Commons these categories are already titled as "destroyed". Solidest (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solidest: You will need to use Qwerfjkl's mass CfD tool to add every year subcategory therein. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. By the way, while I was looking through the category tree, I noticed that many nested branches already use the word ‘destroyed’: Category:British country houses destroyed in the 20th century, Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by war, Category:Buildings and structures destroyed in the September 11 attacks. Solidest (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please list all of the nominated categories in this CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Buildings and structures demolished as a result of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake part of this request? The page has been tagged and the link to "this category's entry" points to this page, but the section-specific part of the link seems broken. Nurg (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, now added to this listing along with sports venues demolished. @Solidest: please insert the section link in the 1= parameter on the tagged pages. Or I could just move this discussion back to the top of the page; I moved it to the bottom because a few years ago I was told that some browsers don't handle a large collapsed section well, but that could be an obsolete issue. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: on my mobile phone large collapsed sections still make it messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Fayenatic london. I've added all the missing ones to the list, as well as added 1= with the discussion section name to all of them. I've also removed "Buildings and structures demolished as a result of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake" from the list, as in this case there is another existing "destroyed buildings" category. Solidest (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]