Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 12

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Francissca Peter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With an already appropriate category for the the artist's albums and another for the covers of those albums (linked via the albums cat), this is an unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:30, 12 November 2021 (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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Voivodes and Kings of the Gypsies to Category:Kings of the Gypsies

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, King of the Gypsies. Super Ψ Dro 23:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Voivode is not an English word. I do not know if it is Romani, but I see no mention of it in main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:09, 15 November 2021 (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:Template Convert. bibliomaniac15 04:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Convert templates to Category:Convert template

Nominator's rationale: The current name appears to be redundant to Category:Conversion templates; however, since it seems to refer to one specific template, I suggest renaming it to be singular, as already is the case with Category:Coord template. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, but I see the problem with Category:Convert templates. But the proposed name is not great. Better be, like: Category:Template:Convert templates (oouch). -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename into Category:Template Convert I propose. Eponymous, and follows existing pattern. See also below. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Oppose DePiep's suggested rename as having multiple namespace prefixes in a row feels clunky. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clunky indeed, I already noted. But the proposed name is not self-clarifying, and singular. IOW, only to understand when opening the page.

Incidentally, we recently had a TfD renaming into Category:Articles using Template:Track gauge with unrecognized input.

Just discovered: all subcategories use name "Template Convert ...". Eponymous. So I propose Category:Template Convert (above). -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative naming scheme would be the one used in Category:Cards subtemplates. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nope. It's Category:Template Convert or nothing else. -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my brain somehow read a colon that wasn't there into your suggested rename. I now support renaming to Category:Template Convert. Also, I've nominated Category:Cards subtemplates for deletion on grounds unrelated to its name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What a mess! --Just N. (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is what we call a discussion. The "D" in "XfD". -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge the two entries are already in the parent Category:Conversion templates, and the subcategories (possibly with slight title adjustments) can be upmerged as well. If it must be kept, the rename to Category:Template Convert is correct. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the "two entries" are Ps {{Convert}} and {{Cvt}}. Indeed they are in parent Category:Conversion templates too, but that is no problem. Parent mentioning = templates that do actually convert; subcategory = templates directly related to {{Convert}} (not necessarily converting by themselves). IOW, this category is to give an overview of {{Convert}}-related templates, MOL like a help-page does. No reason to change that. The current subcategories present, Category:Convert by module documentation, Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert serve that same purpose (though the "Subtemplates of" could be upmerged without loss of info indeed). So apart from possibly Cat:Subtemplates of .., no upmerging to be done. (btw, to consider: check uc/lc in the subcat names). All this is more clear when WP:EPONYMOUS is considered applicable & applied. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, or else rename to Category:Template Convert per above discussion. Considering the limited amount of content in the category, upmerging would have my preference. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2021 (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, falls under the speedy criterion Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1989 Tiananmen Square protests to Category:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME consistency Amigao (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as C2D. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as WP:C2D per 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. Oculi (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per above; can CfD nominations be transferred to CfDS? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussions at cfd meeting speedy criteria can be closed after 2 days (Speedy#Applying speedy criteria in full discussions) but this doesn't often happen. Oculi (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as C2D. --Just N. (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After closure I found that these had been previously deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Cardiovascular disease deaths. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths by country
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths by former country
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Soviet Union
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Argentina
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Australia
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Australia by state or territory
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in New South Wales
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Victoria (Australia)‎
• Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Western Australia

Nominator's rationale: delete, cardiovascular disease deaths are too common to be a defining characteristic. Comparable to deaths by heart failure, earlier deleted in this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per precedent....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Causes of death are always defining. Category:Deaths_from_heart_failure should be recreated. Dimadick (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all No, hell no, causes of death are not defining characteristics (unless it is a particularly uncommon one, in which case it might be the death itself which is notable). A defining characteristic, to take the example of Caravaggio, is something like "Italian", "Baroque", or "artist"; or "[Subject] was an [adjective] [noun]...". I don't think I've ever seen anybody being described as "X was a [Foolandian] [occupations] who died of [cardiovascular disease]. So no, this is just not defining. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:35, 30 November 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 05:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Unexplained deaths
• Propose deleting Category:Unexplained deaths by country
• Propose deleting Category:Unexplained deaths in the United Kingdom
• Propose deleting Category:Unexplained deaths in England
• Propose deleting Category:Unexplained deaths in London

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCMISC, the articles have merely in common that the cause of death has not been specified. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: for the record, some are more interesting than that, being deaths where an open verdict was recorded, so it is unclear whether suicide or foul play was involved. E.g. Buster Edwards: the cause of death was hanging, but by whose hand? Others can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Open_verdict. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not the case with the current articles in the category. Perhaps some day a Category:Open verdict deaths may be created, but with completely new content. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. The category tree does not exist apart from the one category for London with articles in it, and it shouldn't be created. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:10, 29 December 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Articles needing POV-check to Category:NPOV disputes

Nominator's rationale: Per merge of Template:POV check to Template:POV. This needs a separate discussion rather than being an automatic action because the category is also populated by Template:Undue weight, Template:USgovtPOV, and a few other templates. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural question, shouldn't the subcategories be nominated simultaneously? With the proposal as nominated now, there will be one container category containing two different sets of subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, that was done by putting the CFM template on Template:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Articles needing POV-check, with target=NPOV disputes from {{{month name}}} {{{year}}}. Dang if that ain't clever! – Fayenatic London 22:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge following the template merge. I do not see why being also populated by Template:Undue weight and others might be a barrier for merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Note that the target is itself up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_7#Category:NPOV_disputes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now relisted. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, helps with redundancy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (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: keep. bibliomaniac15 04:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American women journalists to Category:American female journalists

Nominator's rationale: We have a category of Category:American male journalists, and it would seem more appropriate to use "female" as an adjective that modifies journalists if we're using "male" as an adjective to modify journalists in the parallel category. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Category:Women writers, Category:Women non-fiction writers, Category:Women journalists, everything else in Category:Women journalists by nationality etc etc. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support changing them all to female but that would be a big job. Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I maybe would support changing them all to female but what a Himalaya of mannual work would that be. --Just N. (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it would fail as 'women' is entirely dominant in Category:Women by occupation. I have the impression that recent cfds have changed 'female' to 'women' rather than vice versa (eg musicians: 2021 August 22#Category:American female classical composers). Oculi (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Oculi. This is an all too common confusion/conflation of sex and gender. "Female" is a sex and should properly only be used in biological/medical contexts. Intersection categories such as these "nationality/gender/occupation" should use "women" rather than "female". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Dodger67. Webster's says either is acceptable, but that from the advent of the 20th century, (note International Woman Suffrage Alliance, not International [Female] Suffrage Alliance) female was deemed to be a disparaging term and one that indicated weakness or inferiority.[1] But further, limiting a category to biological sex, rather than identity, just seems wrong. More reading on the topic[2],[3] SusunW (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2021 (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.