Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 19
December 21 >

December 20

[edit]

Category:Illinois Fighting Illini ice hockey venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same person, different day! Seek and destroy is what drives this person. Spatms (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in Kansas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT as it contains only 2 articles. Both articles are already in other relevant subcategories. The merge target is also currently up for renaming. User:Namiba 23:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Website logos. There's no point in isolating this logo in its own subcategory. Category:Website logos is not that big and can accommodate an extra item. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States federal preemption law

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Should not be controversial. "Law" categories refers to statutes and regulations and other kinds of written enactions. "Case law" categories refer to court decisions. This is a category for case law. lethargilistic (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Sherman Antitrust Act redirect is to a case law section of that article, so I think it's fine as an exception. Kind of random, but whatever. lethargilistic (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the speedy options until just now. I should have listed this there under WP:C2C. lethargilistic (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ranged weapon stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ranged weapon has been deleted, thus a merge is required as this category in its current state is not appropriate. This also implies that Template:Ranged-weapon-stub be deleted as well for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melee weapon stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: With melee weapon now deleted/a redirect/etc. this category is no longer relevant or necessary. It is only generally used in a gaming sense anyway and is inappropriate for real life weapons. This also would include the deletion of Template:Melee-weapon-stub because it would be pointless without the associated category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dual screen phone

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All of the phones present, as of now, in this category are smartphones. Some are foldables, some are not. Almost all, or at least big majority of clamshell dumb phones have 2 screens. As it is now, all of those should also be in this category, but that is not necessary as the clamshell category covers them. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agapanthiinae-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unused and malformed stub template. This was newly created within the past few days, but (a) hasn't been applied to any pages at all, (b) tried to stub-sort its theoretical entries into a redlinked category that doesn't exist to have pages in it but can't be created until the template's on 60 pages, and (c) even the class of thing it's purportedly for is a redlink in the template text, meaning I have absolutely no way to sort out what to do with it (such as what pages to add it to, or what higher-level category to have it upfile any such entries into).
Based on playing around with the word's spelling in the search bar, the best theory I can come up with is that this was a misspelling of Agapanthiini -- but if that's what they meant, then this is just redundant because {{Agapanthiini-stub}} already exists for that, and if they meant something else I have no other way to figure out what was intended.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can figure out that it actually has any potential use, but it can't be kept if it's both broken and unused. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the attempt to create the stub was initiated by the researcher who recently proposed raising the tribe to subfamily rank in a self-published work. No other researchers have adopted this classification, so this is a clear WP:COI violation, as are most of this same editor's other edits, mostly citing his own numerous self-published works. Self-published works are not generally considered reliable sources, and it's even worse when the editor trying to cite them is the author of those works. The number of WP:COI violations by this editor should be a real concern. Dyanega (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White American football cornerbacks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, no reason to split people off based on whether they are White American or not, as skin colour doesn't have any impact on whether or not they are a cornerback. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American films set in New York City

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. While categories such as Category:British films set in New York City and Category:French films set in New York City are valid, it doesn't make sense for this particular category to exist, considering that it's safe to say that the vast majority of films set in New York City are American. snapsnap (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better name for Category:Foreign films set in the United States could be Category:Non-American films set in the United States, but yes, it's a different issue. The primary issue here is that categories such as Category:American films set in New York City (or Category:American films set in the United States, for that matter) are pointless. snapsnap (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a parent category like Category:Films set in the United States by country of production, I don't think categories like Category:American films set in New York City or Category:American films set in the United States would be pointless. It seems like an U. S.-centric point of view to assume that a movie set in the United States would, with no other information, by be default be an American movie. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "U.S.-centric point of view", it's common sense. American films set in New York City (or any other American city) aren't nearly as uncommon as non-American films set in NYC or the US, hence why I don't see categories like Category:American films set in New York City, Category:American films set in the United States and the proposed Category:Films set in the United States by country of production as anything other than overcategorization and puffery. snapsnap (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With over 450 articles in what is currently Category:Foreign films set in the United States, I'm struggling to see why organizing films further by country of productive would be overcategorization; the category seems a little under-organized right now. How it would be puffery is beyond me. Lots of categories are containerized and subcategorized by nation/nationality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The focus of this particular discussion is Category:American films set in New York City, not Category:Foreign films set in the United States. This isn't merely about subcategorization by country. The issue here, specifically, is how Category:American films set in New York City is pointless and completely unnecessary, considering that it's safe to assume that the vast majority of films set in New York City are American. Bottom line: subcategorizing American films by American city is nothing but overcategorization. snapsnap (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. Films being set in the country within which they are produced is not defining. I particularly agree with Marcocapelle's point about how French films set in Paris is not France-centric. I appreciate fighting US-centrism, but this is not an instance of it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA championship–winning players from outside the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent category. This is pretty much a recreation of what was merged in this previous Cfd. I don't see how this is different except that the previously deleted categories have been made into one big one - no need to make a distinction between where a championship-winning player was born for a category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noon Universe novels

[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: withdrawn
Nominator's rationale: "novels" creates unnecessary restriction and is not involved in categorization. I want to add some times (films, etc) but I dont want to create a supercategory for a rather narrow category. --Altenmann >talk 08:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject on open proxies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Since the WikiProject has been renamed, it makes sense to rename the category too. Nobody (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Languages attested

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Roman Catholic saints

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize pre-Schism saints by denomination. All articles are already in Category:3rd-century Christian saints etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed, even if canonisation may have taken place long post-Schism. It is the same reason why I chose Category:Christian saints from Kievan Rus' (9th to 13th century), but we agreed to go for Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (16th to 18th century). Still not sure how this going to pan out in the end, but our recent changes do address some of the worst anachronisms. NLeeuw (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia oversighters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Special:Users, which is automatically maintained and is up to date at all times. The users involved were not asked nor did they consent to being placed in this category, and some of the pages that have been included do not fit into the category (e.g., User:Deskana/Userboxes/oversight since). Deskana has not been an oversighter for many years, and their name should not be included in this category, even peripherally. The category is not maintained, and it is poor use of editor time to maintain a redundant category. Risker (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This category was created before the Single User Login (SUL) conversion, and may have made sense at the time, but has now been supplanted by Special:Users. Risker (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the 2 nominations. Courtesy ping to Risker. - jc37 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. It contains editors who are not oversighters (e.g. Deskana) and doesn't contain some editors who are (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is filled by at least top icons and likely also user boxes. Errors of incorrect inclusion should be corrected instead of used as examples IMO.... Izno (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If these are deleted per redundancy with Special:Users, I think that there should be a follow-up nom (or add to this one) of most of the cats in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level, except maybe Stewards and the global ones, since they are off-wiki. - jc37 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[1] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete We give wide latitude to users to decide how they wish to appear in categories. That extends even to user groups, and largely always has. We have complementary categories for every user right, and I'm really struggling to see what the harm is in an incomplete list. (And have already ceded that these should be removed from the pages where they are no longer appropriate.)
    This seems to be a WP:CLN type problem to me. Different people have different ways of navigating, and we have different ways of organizing information with each type. And on top of that, different scripts which add supplementary information in different locations. The categories are helpful in this anyway because they already expose the more complete list, and give people who are familiar with categories a place to go when they're looking at a specific user page. Or coming from the other direction, down from "Wikipedia user groups", from which they may have navigated elsewise. Izno (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[2] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference here. "This user likes baseball" is reliant only on the user's preference. "This user is checkuser" can change without the user being involved (due to removal due to inactivity or whatever). So in the first case, if they go inactive, the userbox is still applicable. In the second, it's not.
    And yes: "We should not miscategorize Wikipedians" has long been foundation to take into consideration at CfD. (Similar to, we should never miscategorize articles about people.) We should never merge Wikipedians into an inapplicable category, for example, merely to make the name "better" per a cfd discussion. So in those cases, we delete the cat and allow for Wikipedians to decide for themselves if they should belong to a category of a new name. We should not be deciding for them.
    Anyway, in this case, it's simple: categories are about navigation. Having these is a disservice to those looking for a CU or OS editor. Add a link (with an explanation) to Special:Users, at the top of the parent cat, and call it good. - jc37 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the idea of having these categories are a leftover relic of times gone by. And, as you note, wiki software has removed the need for them. - jc37 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The presence of a category here is inherently misleading. And besides that there's little reason besides curiosity to browse the list of checkusers or oversighters - if you want the attention of a checkuser use {{Checkuser needed}}, if you want something oversighted follow one of the approved processes at Wikipedia:Oversight. In neither case is it helpful to broadcast. Pppery (alt) (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials to Queen Elizabeth II

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME, which clearly states that standard naming conventions used for articles also apply to categories. As a result, this category needs to be made consistent with dozens of other categories on Elizabeth II, including Category:Elizabeth II, Category:Coronation of Elizabeth II, Category:Cultural depictions of Elizabeth II, etc. The guidelines and the consensus discourage the use of prefixes "King", "Queen", etc. before a sovereign's regnal name (per WP:SOVEREIGN and various discussions from June 2018, May 2019 (1), May 2019 (2), etc.). Keivan.fTalk 03:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belarusian saints

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Downmerge redundant layer after recent renaming and merger. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from Belarus. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other. Pinging @HouseBlaster: here we go. NLeeuw (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NL! Support per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military families by nationality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Salvadoran families and other subcategories of category:Business families by country. Moved from Speedy after objection. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Selinker: Wouldn't C2C dictate that the categories above should stay xyz families by Country, instead of switching to Country xyz families? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up about this @Mike Selinker. To be clear though, my objection/question starts from military families onwards. I don't have an opinion on the other family nominations above that. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that the precedent is in the "[Nationality] families" scheme. But I could see it going either way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A looooot of these categories are inappropriate intersections between the people by country and people by nationality tree. I think we first need to decide in which of these two trees we want the business families and military families to be in, because it cannot be both. Country is probably more important than nationality: business people can have nationality A while running well-known businesses in country B, and soldiers with nationality A can serve as mercenaries for country B. The country you serve, or the country you operate your business in, is probably more WP:DEFINING for you as a person or family, or that society you work in/for, than the flag in your passport. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggested renaming obfuscates the fact that the categorization should be by nationality, not by ethnicity. Categorization by ethnicity should be for things inherently cultural/antropological. --Altenmann >talk 09:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it should be by nationality either, but by country (see my comment above). NLeeuw (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport in Balutola

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for one thing in a small village, with the added bonus that the thing isn't even in that village, it's in a larger place near the village. But we categorize things for the places that they're in, not the places that the places they're in are near, so this isn't warranted at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_20&oldid=1265619348"