Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 3

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 to Category:Userspace files. ✗plicit 02:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian images to Category:Images of Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge to Category:Userspace files as redundant. Failing that, Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (images only) per Pppery and WP:OVERLAPCAT; and move Wikipedia:Facebook directory to Category:Wikipedians. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, I have no objection to either of the above alternatives. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 5 March 2022 (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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chefs from Asturias to Category:People from Asturias

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete -- The one article is already sufficiently categorised, including a more specific locational one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2022 (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. CSD G7 at page creator's request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:SDZeroBot database report subscriptions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The template that populated this category was userfied per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 25#Template:Database report. It's impossible to userfy categories, so the category it populates now should be deleted as effectively a personal category for a defunct project per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 18. The only reason I didn't nominate this for deletion on December 18 was that I was hoping that the template would be deleted at TfD, whereupon I could have {{db-templatecat}}ed the category without the need for a separate discussion. @WikiCleanerMan, Plastikspork, Frietjes, and Izno:. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, can always be revived if the bot task is revived. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy the category's text to User:SDZeroBot/Category:SDZeroBot database report subscriptions (this will deactivate any categorization function) ; when the category comes back into use, they can just recreate the category page with its current text from the user subpage. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2022 (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. Author has requested WP:G7 deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:International airports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:56, 3 January 2022 (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. The contents comprised only one sub-cat which was merged elsewhere, see link below. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Medieval Dutch physicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty. Netherlands did not exist before 1579. Rathfelder (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Empty? That is odd. I would have expected articles here to be merged to Category:Medieval physicians, some also to Category:People from the Duchy of Brabant, and possibly to Category:People from the county of Holland (still to be created). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Found its content: Category:15th-century Dutch physicians. The beforementioned merge isn't very applicable considering the speedy rename proposal for this subcategory. Nevertheless @Rathfelder: please do not empty a category when nominating it, it is inappropriate and very confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-cat has been renamed to Category:Burgundian Netherlands physicians. – Fayenatic London 12:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we agreed some time ago that Medieval Dutch categories were inappropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That does not matter, we are not only here to discuss what is inappropriate but also to find the best alternative solution. When there is nothing left in the category it is very difficult to discuss alternative solutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, especially after renaming the subcat the category no longer serves a purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Cross-reference: the sub-cat has been nominated for merging at Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Category:Burgundian Netherlands explorers. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes: Category:Medieval Dutch people has several (small) sub-cats. The only precedents I could only find are 2015_April_4 (no consensus to merge the nominated category) and 2018_June_2 (selective merge from century categories to Medieval Dutch people). – Fayenatic London 21:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, I have added Henri Arnaut de Zwolle to Category:Medieval Dutch people. Unless and until consensus is reached regarding the latter category we should not randomly remove articles from there. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or full upmerge). This seems to be an unnecessary level, as it is covered by Category:Burgundian Netherlands physicians, but we should be eliminating all or most of the medieval Dutch categories in a similar way. The Duchy of Burgundy was big enough for us to have categories for it, but where the category relates to a Duchy that was not yet part of Burgundy, the merge target should be a HRE one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an ahistoric application of a nationality term to a time that it did not really exist, at least not in a way that we can consider it the same enough to group people together under one term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Byram Township, New Jersey to Category:People from Sussex County, New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The category already has four entries, with the addition of an article that had already been listed Byram Township, New Jersey, but that hadn't yet had the category added (or noticed by the nominator). Does four meet the legally mandated minimum, or do we need to add more to stave off deletion? Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alansohn: if there are more then please add them (regardless of this deletion discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle, apparently, some imaginary Wikipedia policy forbids a category with three entries. I've updated the article and increased the size. How many entries are adequate to justify retention of a category? Alansohn (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alansohn: the point of categories is not securing their existance but their being as fully populated as possible. If you know 10 more articles then why wouldn't you add them? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle, I keep on adding entries to categories; I must have added tens of thousands. Unfortunately, time that I could have used to populate categories and making them "as fully populated as possible" is wasted by those who seem to believe that the point of categories is to delete them. The absence of any clear answer to the question of how many entries is enough only wastes even more time. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alansohn I see what you mean. The most often mentioned cut off on this platform is 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 4 entries seems enuf for this cat. Djflem (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2022 (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 to merge, so rename to Category:Unregistered public associations listed in Russia as foreign agents and Category:Non-profit organizations listed in Russia as foreign agents (following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent). – Fayenatic London 22:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Unregistered public associations listed as a Russian foreign agent to Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent
• Propose merging Category:Non-profit organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent to Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent added 8 January 2022

Nominator's rationale: What is an "unregistered public association"? Also, the listed merge target should not be a redirect to Category:Non-profit organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent, especially one that is included in categories; any organizations that aren't nonprofits could go here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, it looks like a case of WP:OCMISC. In addition it is questionable whether "listed as a Russian foreign agent" is a defining characteristic at all - but that applies to the whole tree of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• After clarification from User:Wikisaurus below I withdraw my reference to WP:OCMISC. Nevertheless I still think that the merge should go ahead, and Category:Non-profit organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent‎ should be merged there too, because the distinction made in Russian law is just a case of hairsplitting. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reinstate -- Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent (currently a cat-redirect) or better still Category:Organizations listed by Russia as foreign agents and merge into it Category:Non-profit organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent. Non-profit is an American tax category and should not be used elsewhere (unless there is a relevant local law). Most of these organisations have been dissolved by the Russian State, so that they are now inevitably un- or rather de-registered. A headnote may need to explain that this is limited to organisations within Russia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reinstated Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but rename. 1) There are two separate lists of foreign agents, created by the Russian Ministry of Justice, that is "Register of non-profit organizations acting as foreign agents" and "Register of unregistered public associations acting as foreign agents", see a description in English here. It would be factually wrong to combine them to a common category of "organizations acting as foreign agents", because such category does not exist in the Russian law.
  2) The category is not WP:OCMISC. The fact that the organization was added to the lists of smths acting as foreign agents is very important in Russian public life, every expansion of the lists is widely covered in both state media and opposition media; for example, about adding Humanitarian Action to the list there were 200 news, about Committee for the Prevention of Torture (Russia) - 100 news, about SOVA Center - 250 news and so on.
  3) The categories should be renamed, probably into something like Category:Unregistered public associations listed in Russia as foreign agents. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Peterkingiron, LaundryPizza03, and Wikisaurus: both Peterkingiron and I appear to be in favour of merging the sibling category as well so I have added this category to the nomination. Feel free to react. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the target has meanwhile been renamed to Category:Organizations listed in Russia as foreign agents. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Presidential Spokespersons of the Philippines to Category:Presidential spokespersons (Philippines)

Nominator's rationale: Parent article has been renamed to Presidential spokesperson (Philippines) Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The category name should still be a plural: Category:Presidential spokespersons (Philippines). – Fayenatic London 21:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops, that's right. I've changed the proposal to your suggestion. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent article --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 24 January 2022 (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.