Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 6

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: speedy delete. One author blanked/deleted category. Nobody else was using it. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Unblockable users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Bundled in Category:Undeletable categories. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category likely to be misused to place other editors in. No positive use can come of tagging editors (oneself or others) as "unblockable". Only can be used as a pejorative or to make some kind of point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as obvious vandalism._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by an admin? I guess he could be unblockable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha you can’t touch me. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've created the self-categorized Category:Undeletable categories? Maybe my calendar is wrong and it actually is April 1st. Someone else will have to tag this one and post a notice on Jehochman's talk page. I'm reportedly humorless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Political statement? Attempt at humor? Does it matter? Not constructive and not suitable for an encyclopedia. —Rutebega (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. Humor, sarcasm and political statement. Please, we need to stop being so humorless and morale suppressing. Trying to cheer people up. Anybody can be unblockable. Just add yourself to the category. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as humour and delete as likely to be abused. Or whatever. In any case, lighten up. I briefly considered making this a subcategory of Category:Undeletable categories, but I am not completely sure this would work. Hans Adler 23:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as humor. May help save some unwitting admin from trying to block, say, Cydebot and having things go sideways. – SJ + 01:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the humor here seems to be in mocking a frustration/helplessness many people have felt, which is encapsulated in the concept of "unblockable". If it's not, then it's easily misconstrued given the present context (in addition to serving no actual purpose). If that puts me in "what's the matter, can't take a joke?" territory, so be it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to work the other way around. Users can mock the "unblockables" by putting themselves in the category. The idea should be that the rules apply equally to all. If you're unblockable than so am I. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be intended for the purpose, but that's not the effect (IMO). Nobody actually identifies as an unblockable, so they are not mocked here. Regardless, that it's intended to mock one group rather than another, and could be interpreted as either, still points to it being inappropriate because categories aren't to mock people. If it doesn't mock people, it mocks the idea, which is what seems most logical to me, and goes back to what I said originally. Seems similar to creating a userbox that says "This user enjoys harassing and intimidating other Wikipedians with impunity." Amid discussions where people are feeling very vulnerable for being the subject of (or accused of, even) harassment and other problematic behavior, it's not helpful to make light. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Oh well. -- llywrch (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is not obvious (enough) that this concerns humor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. People need to lighten up, especially these days.—Chowbok ☠ 11:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise proposal How about if we keep it, but add a rule that you can only add yourself to it? That should address people's abuse concerns, but keep the joke in place.—Chowbok ☠ 11:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Good suggestion. Any project page can be abused if people want to be uncivil. We don’t delete things just because somebody might be obnoxious. Jehochman ^Talk 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What, start an RFC at WP:VPP? Otherwise, I don’t think any “rule” we agree on here is enforceable. Even if it were, it wouldn’t help with the concerns Rhododendrites brings up (which I share). I believe this was well-intentioned, but I don’t think it’s worth keeping. —Rutebega (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It really isn't funny. It's a confusing category that just promotes more bad blood.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I do believe this is a time when more humor is needed, this really isn't funny, and will become less and less funny as time goes on. It's not like the category will suddenly fade away when WP:FRAM fades into history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my experience at CFD, being funny has never been a valid reason to keep a humorous category. I've seen plenty of witty categories get voted down here and a few times I have voted to keep ones I thought were clever but I was always outvoted.

Of course, this one might be an exception to this general rule and the admin who closes this discussion could decide to keep. But typically, categories are supposed to be straight-forward, functional, not pointy and make sense within the existing category structure, not be created for amusement's sake. This one seems likely to be misunderstood should newer editors come across it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a desire to have a humourous category with this theme, just reverse it: "Super-blockable users". isaacl (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't help to build the encyclopedia, and take Category:Undeletable categories with it. If for some crazy reason this should be kept, it should be renamed to "Wikipedia ...." along with other un-encylopedic categories. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:08, 8 July 2019 (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.

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: speedy delete (G5). MER-C 09:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LF Top Songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be notable. Only reference online seems to be youtube playlists. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete ~~ 1hitsmusic

• Delete - Overcategorization per WP:TOPTEN —Rutebega (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page cannot be deleted because it represents the official music brand. ~~ 1hitsmusic —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable per nom, based on creator's actions it seems promotional. creffett (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Created by a sock puppet of LTA Alex9777777 just for self-promotion purposes. --jdx ^Re: 00:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear self-promotion. None of the songs added to this category are primarily about "LF Top Songs" so should not be in this category. Should really be speedily deleted. Railfan23 (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:G5 probably also applies —PaleoNeonate – 06:21, 7 July 2019 (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.

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women warriors to Category:Female warriors

Nominator's rationale: For some reason, "women warriors" doesn't strike me as correct grammar. I would write "male warriors" instead of "men warriors", for example, if there was such a category. If this is renamed, it obviously goes to reason that all similar subcategories should be renamed as well. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this comes up at cfd from time to time (eg in 2011) where people claim that women is never used as an adjective, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Eg [search] gives several books. Oculi (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Female Warriors appears just as often. My point still stands - the former sounds awkward and the latter doesn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, I made the category some time ago, I picked "women warriors" because the childcategories I was putting into it were all named "women" instead of female so I assumed there was some traditional thing. I don't mind if it's renamed but Wikipedia aught to be more consistent with how it does things.★Trekker (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2019 (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.

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Glandorf, Ohio to Category:People from Putnam County, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:04, 6 July 2019 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People from Emmen to Category:People from Emmen, Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Per leading Category:Emmen, Netherlands and article Emmen, Netherlands. Also remove Category:Sport in Emmen for the same reasons. And move Category:Sportspeople from Emmen. gidonb (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2019 (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.

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. MER-C 08:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Articles with audio generated from MIDI files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: MIDI files can now be played without the Score extension (see Tech News), so {{Listen}} no longer does anything special for them, rendering this category obsolete. It will soon be empty for good. Nardog (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 9 July 2019 (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.

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 was one editor who !voted "merge", but later said that they "do not object to deletion"; otherwise, there is consensus to delete the category. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:El Comité (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:El Comité 1973‎. There is no need to merge, all articles are already in the target category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, see also this related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I considered nominating one of these for deletion, but decided to keep both, as one is about a magazine and one is about a literary group. Only the magazine has a lead article, El Comité 1973. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it is worth, the English WP article uses the English translation of "El Comité" as a synonym of "El Comité 1973" without referring to a literary group, while the Spanish WP article El Comité article has been deleted. In any case, as there is only one topic article while all others are biography articles, so there is no reason for having two categories. After merging it can still be parented to both the literary groups tree and to the magazines tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: Do you perhaps have any further comments? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Mexican literary movements as this will preserve the necessary parenting for the magazine category. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I consider that the categories refer to a two different things, one category is for a magazine and the other is for a literary group like Fayenatic mentioned before. For example, within the category of the magazine there are a couple of names of people that have collaborated with the magazine but not consider themselves as part of the group. I suggest to keep both categories.Borisf7 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidental writers for the magazine should be purged anyway, per WP:PERFCAT. Less than a handful biographies remain with people are both involved in the literary group and with the magazine. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, I agree with you, thank you for improving the categories.Borisf7 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without adding it to the literary movement category. We don't have enough content about the literary movement to warrant a category. It should of course be added if we add information about the movement but as is it doesn't belong. --Trialpears (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair point, Trialpears. I do not object to deletion. – Fayenatic London 10:22, 18 September 2019 (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.

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. MER-C 08:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters by status to Category:Fictional characters
• Propose merging Category:Anime and manga characters by status to Category:Anime and manga characters added 22 June
• Propose merging Category:Video game characters by status to Category:Video game characters added 22 June

Nominator's rationale: merge, a case of WP:OCMISC, the subcategories have nothing specifically in common with each other apart from the fact that they are about fictional characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge The real-world Category:People by status includes articles regarding death, existence, or legal status. Most of the contents of this category, save for Category:Fictional victims, bear no relation to these. If we are to use the same coherent definition of "status" as the real-world category, we would remove all categories except for Category:Fictional victims and possibly Category:Fictional deaths by cause, Category:Fictional orphans, Category:Fictional clones, and Category:Fictional sole survivors. (The latter has no real-world equivalent for some reason.) That would make up to 5 subcategories, enough for a keep. With regards to the rest:
  • the inclusion of Category:Fictional offspring of incestuous relationships and Category:Fictional offspring of rape, which also have no real-world analogs, is unclear;
  • some of the subcategories are already in Category:Fictional victims;
  • Category:Merged fictional characters is probably better described as an "attribute" rather than a "status";
  • the subcategories by medium, Category:Anime and manga characters by status and Category:Video game characters by status, have the same problems as this category and should be included in this nomination; and
  • the subcategories not mentioned in this comment are clearly not "statuses", but rather "attributes" or "characterizations". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for your thorough analysis. I agree that the two subcategories should be added to the nomination, I am adding them now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As said above, these are not "statuses" but descriptors. One does not un-become an LGBT person, an orphan, or an adoptee. Therefore the category title makes little sense and should be merged._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as several other-language Wikipedias have an equivalent category, I looked into some of the history. User:ProveIt created Category:Fictional characters by situation in 2006, with the explanation "Category for fictional characters based on some special situation or event, such as disaster survivors, refugees, crime victims, or hostages." This name was copied in the French category name fr:Catégorie:Personnage de fiction par situation in 2007. The Spanish es:Categoría:Personajes ficticios por condición was created in 2008. Various other languages use "status" (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6297857 ). The original was apparently emptied into the parent by user:Jc37 and deleted without discussion in 2008. User:Lord Opeth created the nominated category in 2009. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 8 July 2019 (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.

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. MER-C 08:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Socialist Party (Italy, 2007, De Michelis) politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category concerning two members of a party who lived only four months. It is unnecessary. Wololoo (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Both articles are also in another category in the tree of Category:Italian politicians so a merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2019 (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.

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. MER-C 08:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Public universities in Greece to Category:Universities in Greece

Nominator's rationale: In Greece, all universities are public, as mentioned for instance here. There is therefore no reason to single out the 3 universities currently in this category from the other universities. Place Clichy (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The immediate solution would be to move the content from Category:Universities in Greece to Category:Public universities in Greece without touching the category structure. However I symphatize with the nom as it questionable whether we should have a tree for public universities at all. Shouldn't we rather have a tree for private universities, that being the exception in many countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Marcocapelle on this.Rathfelder (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - also agree that the underdeveloped Category:Public universities by country tree should be merged, starting with this one. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I suspect that very few countries have a meaningful distinction between public and private universities. I expect American is an exception here. I can think of one British one that began private, but subsequently was granted a royal charter. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (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.

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 to Category:Television about fairies and sprites. MER-C 09:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fairies and sprites in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, it simply categorizes all shows that feature the element without actually being noteworthy for it. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The assessment seems to be the nominator's POV only. Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept (i.e. not deleted) it would make sense to rename it to Category:Television about fairies and sprites, in the same format as Category:Television about magic, in order to improve the definingness of the characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Television about fairies and sprites and trim television which doesn't have fairies/sprites as main characters. Some television does though (e.g. The Fairly OddParents, The Lampies, Rilu Rilu Fairilu) and a category for programmes based around similar folklore seems defining enough for me. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 16:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "television which doesn't have fairies/sprites as main characters" What about Gargoyles (TV series)? The main heroes (and several of the supporting characters and antagonists) are shape-shifting gargoyles. Most of the series' villains and antagonists are fairies (such as Oberon, Titania, and Puck), human-fairy hybrids (such as Fox/Janine Renard), or have gained their powers and immortality through fairy magic (such as Demona and Macbeth, who were granted powers by the fairy trio known as the Weird Sisters/Three Witches). Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Television about fairies and sprites per Bilrov. It is defining for some pages. I think Gargoyles (TV series) should be included based on Dimadick's description, but I'm not familiar with the show nor have read the article. --Trialpears (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2019 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rome Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, the award is often not even mentioned in the article of the people in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAWARD. There is already a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2019 (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.