Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31

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: Procedural close. Oops, started at the wrong place in the category tree, plus additional issues (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Equestrian at the Summer Olympics to Category:Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics

Nominator's rationale:[Adjective] at the Summer Olympics is just bad English. This (and the whole category tree) needs to be renamed, to something else. We could match the commons category (which is "Equestrian sports") or we could match the usage of the navbox and the first sentence of the main topic article (whose title I've recently changed to match with basic requirements of the English language, Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics). I propose the second, since that's shorter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree up to a point, but the top category is Category:Equestrian sports, subcat Category:Equestrian sports competitions, so the rename needs to begin higher up the tree with Category:Equestrian at multi-sport events and should be Category:Equestrian sports at multi-sport events etc (which would be speedies). (Equestrianism seems to be wider than 'equestrian sports'.) Oculi (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt rename to Category:Equestrian sports at the Summer Olympics per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as we should get consensus to move the articles first (something which the OP doesn't have consensus to do, but has started unilaterally doing anyway). If the articles are moved, then and only then should the category be moved, as the category should match the agreed upon articles titles (and they haven't yet established a consensus for Equestrianism in article titles). CFD shouldn't be used as a de facto process to change article titles, and category titles should match article titles. There was a discussion started at WT:SPORTS about this, so wait until that gets some consensus before doing any more category or page moves. And if a category name change is needed, we should probably change all the categories in the hierarchy rather than just picking one to change and making it inconsistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative rename to Category:Equestrian sports at the Summer Olympics; and rename all necessary sub-categories in the Category:Equestrian at multi-sport events tree similarly. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:12, 1 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Clean-up categories from 2001 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Clean-up categories from 2002 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Clean-up categories from 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Clean-up categories from 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Clean-up categories from 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These are notproject categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion as the term is defined by WP:CSD#C1, so should not be retained despite being empty. A total of 8 different admins (Explicit, Fastily, RHaworth, Mojo Hand, Diannaa, Fram, VegaDark, Edgar181) have agreed with this claim and deleted these under C1 or G6, making it clear that the creator's unilateral addition of {{Empty category}} is against consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can include my name if you are going to talk about me, yes, I tagged these five pages as empty categories. Looking at just one page log, right here, you can see that some of these pages (except for 2005) have been repeatedly created and deleted, in fact, I've been both a page restorer and page deleter of these pages myself (I'm not sure why you didn't include me in your list of 8, now 9 admins). For maintenance categories that are periodically empty, rather than go through the cycle of creation and deletion, there have been times I put an empty cat tag on the page. I haven't done this very often as I usually tag empty categories (my CSD log is on the list of very long pages). I guess you could call that a "unilateral addition" but most editors who tag pages for all sorts of reasons are basing it on their own decision of what should be done, not a group consensus.

By the way, there are 64,762 transclusions of the empty cat tag and I imagine if you wanted to take the time to go through them, you would find other occasions where the use was questionable. In my years of work reviewing the daily Empty Category list, I've seen editors put the tag on a brand new, empty category to keep it from being deleted. Over the years, taking on the project of looking into use of the empty cat tag was something I have often thought about bringing to the Village Pump Proposals but there always seemed to be other work that needed to get done.

But back to this proposal, these categories are probably not necessary any more but I guess I saw them as more historical than utilitarian. We have one for every year of the project. But, go ahead, discuss, and of course, I'll accept the consensus of the CFD regulars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include you because the point I was trying to make was that every single one of those admins disagrees with you about whether these should be retained as empty, and you obviously don't disagree with yourself. Nor would there be anything wrong with you unilaterally adding that template if it weren't for the fact that at least ten other people (those eight admins plus Emk9 and MrLinkinPark333 who added G6 tags) were known to disagree with you.

There categories are only becoming non-empty in the first place because WantedCategories patrollers are being lazy and creating backdated monthly cleanup categories from these years rather than emptying the original backdated "Article with <issue> from <month> <year>" category, meaning the argument for them being kept as empty makes little sense. And we don't generally keep categories for historical value. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:59, 31 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: merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries by country‎ to Category:Defunct breweries
• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries of Belgium‎ to Category:Defunct breweries and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of Belgium to Category:Defunct breweries, Category:Breweries of Belgium and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of Belgium (1 P)
• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries of China‎ to Category:Defunct breweries, Category:Breweries in China and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of China (1 P)
• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries of Denmark‎ to Category:Defunct breweries, Category:Breweries in Denmark and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of Denmark (1 P)
• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries of Germany‎ to Category:Defunct breweries, Category:Breweries in Germany and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of Germany (2 P)
• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries of the Netherlands‎ to Category:Defunct breweries , Category:Breweries in the Netherlands and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of the Netherlands (2 P)
• Propose merging Category:Defunct breweries of Norway‎ to Category:Defunct breweries, Category:Breweries in Norway and Category:Defunct food and drink companies of Norway (3 P)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, very underdeveloped tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I know about Germany there are lots of defunct brewery companies which mostly have had several decades of industrial prosperousness. Not all that are based in non-UK countries seem to have articles translated into en-Wikipedia. --Just N. (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose As most Category:Defunct breweries by country‎ cases have good growth pontential they should simply be kept. --Just N. (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all We should not keep categories based on speculation. If more articles about defunct breweries get added, then the categories can be recreated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 31 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: split (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Quantification (science) to Category:Quantification (science) and Category:Quantifier (logic)

Nominator's rationale: Quantification used to be the category for an eponymous page that covered mainly the meaning of the word in logic and semantics. The main article was (rightly) split in 2014 to differentiate between the scientific method (Quantification (science)) and the logical concept (Quantifier (logic)). However, the category became associated with the former page even though the vast majority of the entries it contains refer to quantification in logic or semantics. The only entries that should stay here are Quantification (science), Ethics of quantification, Sociology of quantification and Statactivism. Felix QW (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:55, 7 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: no consensus. Zxcvbnm: feel free to split the existing category to the proposed target name as a new sub-category. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Merlin to Category:Works based on Merlin

Nominator's rationale: This category is malplaced, it should be a subcategory of Category:Works based on Arthurian legend and moved accordingly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Works about Merlin may be better grammar. Regardless of the rename target, the category should be purged, many articles are not specifically about Merlin. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's following the naming scheme of the entire "based on" category tree. Perhaps there might be some merit to renaming it but that's a different discussion altogether. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, it is part of a tree under Category:Works based on literary characters, so it does not make sense to discuss an alternative rename target for the nominated category only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The category includes locations of the Merlin legend, such as Brocéliande, where Merlin's tomb was located. These are not works. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 9 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 13:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please give some reference for that affirmation first. As it is now it's not decidable. --Just N. (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ninjatacoshell: please respond to the above comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did give a reference: [2]. Here's another: [3] (but it's based on the first). Ninjatacoshell (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. The second source addresses the change to "....ota" a lot clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:00, 7 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 13:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:01, 7 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 13:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:01, 7 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 Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video‎ to Category:Wikipedia requested audio of orchestras, delete Category:Articles needing audio and or video. bibliomaniac15 07:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Articles needing audio and or video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationaleArticles on the Wikipedia site with this category are under consideration for Featured sounds status -> Wikipedia:Featured sounds is marked as historical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - These are two different categories that only superficially related. Nominator did not explain what the importance of the featured sounds page is to these categories either. If the sound files are still needed, how can they be featured?
• Keep Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ) - category is well populated and the articles would benefit from audio.
• Merge Category:Articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ) to Category:Wikipedia requested audio ( 496 ) and Category:Wikipedia requested videos ( 365 ) - I can’t find a video request category. If there is one, the nominated category should be split. --awkwafaba (📥) 03:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a Category:Wikipedia requested videos. Some other notes: the bit about featured sounds is a literal quote from the category page, so it's up to the creator to explain the connection, not me. Also, most articles in Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video‎ are also in Category:Articles needing audio and or video‎, which should be dealt with in the event of a merge. Finally, if kept, Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video‎ should be renamed to Symphony orchestra articles needing audio or video per MOS:ANDOR, or failing that Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and/or video to have proper grammar. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: you are the creator of this CfD, you are the one who proposed the two different categories together. The creators of the categories don’t need to explain why you did that, you need to explain the connection and why you didn’t make this two proposals. Additionally,Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ) has been moved, and no longer is directly in Category:Articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ). --awkwafaba (📥) 15:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging this way, the targets contain talk pages while the nominated categories do not. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

at this point, i think things have changed enough I think merging is no longer prudent.

• Comment, nominator's rationale for deletion of Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video is clear: Wikipedia:Featured sounds is marked as historical. It is not clear to me why User:Awkwafaba disagrees, they just come up with a counter proposal to keep Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video without explaining why nominator's rationale is incorrect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: as I mentioned above, it is not clear at all what Wikipedia:Featured sounds has to do with these categories, and as you could see, the nominator has not explained their rationale. I would imagine that Wikipedia:Featured sounds deals solely with audio, and not video, unlike the two nominated categories. Also, if Wikipedia:Featured sounds is defunct, does that mean the nominated categories no longer need audio and/or video? And I do not understand why, in the absence of clear justification for deletion that counterproposals are not acceptable. It doesn’t seem like anyone else has been swayed by the flimsy proposal. --awkwafaba (📥) 14:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clearly written on the category page that this category is related to Wikipedia:Featured sounds. This is a maintenance category and as the maintenance process related to the category is defunct, it seems obvious that the category should be deleted too. No? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I think you mean pages, and not page. I’m not sure why these categories keep getting confused. Anyhow, it was totally super tough, but I removed the link to the defunct project. Not sure why that wasn’t the first step before a CfD, but here we are. Now why do you think these categories need removal, and not the other file request categories? --awkwafaba (📥) 13:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that the category creator is no longer active so there isn't any further clarification to be expected regarding the purpose of these categories in relationship with the defunct project. This does not lead somewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I think the creator of the CfD would be more useful as to their own reasoning than the creator os the categories. But in any event, you were responding to my question on your opinion, not theirs. --awkwafaba (📥) 00:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not clear why Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video‎ is no longer part of Category:Articles needing audio and or video‎. It is clearly a subset, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: it still is. Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ) is in Category:Wikipedia requested music files ( 0 ), which is in Category:Wikipedia requested audio ( 496 ), which in turn is within Category:Articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ). --awkwafaba (📥) 00:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. By moving the category there, that also implies that "and video" can be removed from the name of Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video ( 0 ), right? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Symphony orchestra articles needing audio and or video‎ to Category:Wikipedia requested audio of orchestras, following Marcocapelle's suggestion above and matching the names of sibling categories. Delete Category:Articles needing audio and or video as every article directly within it is also within the orchestras category, and its two sub-cats Category:Wikipedia requested audio‎ & Category:Wikipedia requested videos‎ are in other appropriate parents. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am fine with this proposal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 9 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: rename to Category:Psychological studies of heads of state. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Psychology of political leaders to Category:Psychology of heads of state

Nominator's rationale: rename, we have a well-populated tree for heads of state in which this category may finds its home, while there isn't a well populated tree for political leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete: category is a poorly defined mishmash of non-defining traits. Unless there are or will be several articles titled Psychology of George Washington or Psychology of Margaret Thatcher, the category is just needless finicky metacategorizing. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The books in the category do contain a psychological analysis of presidents though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• An even better rename is Category:Psychological studies of heads of state, aligning with subCategory:Psychological studies of Adolf Hitler. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:13, 31 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. List added at Wikipedia talk:Tools/RAMP editor. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Articles with information extracted by the RAMP editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Tools/RAMP editor is marked as {{historical}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:03, 7 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs based on music samples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Similar categories have been attempted before and deleted via CfD. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 11#Category:Songs which sample or interpolate other songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even more too wide and emcompassing than before. The article Sampling (music) covers a few examples as part of the text. Enough is enough. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:03, 7 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.