Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Romance culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is not defining, and doesn't seem accurate. This category says its culture by language family. However, Culture of Vatican City isn't defined by "Romance culture" ^SMason_Garrison 23:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, an article Romance culture does not exist, it seems a case of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jewish men centenarians to Category:Jewish centenarians
• Propose merging Category:Jewish women centenarians to Category:Jewish centenarians

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections between gender, ethnicity/religion, and longevity. I don't think that this meets the standard under Wikipedia:EGRS. ^SMason_Garrison 22:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--User:Namiba 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:National blood donation authorities to Category:Blood donation organizations

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 16:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chemical vapor deposition techniques to Category:Chemical vapor deposition

Nominator's rationale: vague, upmerge to the underpopulated parent ^SMason_Garrison 16:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. I agree with nomination rationale. Marbletan (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Printing registration to Category:Identifiers and Category:Printing technology

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. underpopulated category upmerge for now ^SMason_Garrison 16:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Intersex healthcare. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Intersex and medicine to ?

Nominator's rationale: See Intersex healthcare, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18#Category:Intersex or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Category:Transgender and medicine.

So Category:Intersex healthcare or Category:Intersex topics and medicine? --MikutoH ^talk! 03:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Intersex healthcare per article title Intersex healthcare. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on alt?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Intersex healthcare ^SMason_Garrison 17:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Slavery in Germany to Category:Slavery in Europe

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary for it to exist without more articles in it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not delete. Otherwise the content gets isolated. ^SMason_Garrison 17:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mother runners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a category for runners who are also mothers. Proposed deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT which statesAvoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability. 1857a (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that motherhood is peripheral to an athlete’s notability. The decision to have children is one of the most consequential decisions a person can make, and even more so among elite runners whose job depends on the ability to use their bodies to train and perform at the highest levels of the sport. Consider the difference between this and something like a notional “Redheaded Runners” and I think it becomes quite clear.

This categorization may be helpful to Wikipedia readers as there has been media attention on the issue of elite runners losing contracts/health insurance because they became pregnant. See link for example.

In addition, there is an entire brand with books, a podcast, speaking tour, etc (of which I have no affiliation) called Another Mother Runner which brings attention to the intersectionality of motherhood and runners. It started in 2011 and is well-known. Aschbren (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a defining feature. These people are not regularly described as "Mother runners". ^SMason_Garrison 17:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether it is a common term or not is irrelevant per guidelines for categorization. I’ve never heard the phrase “21st century sportswomen” outside of a Wikipedia category, but that is not being challenged.

  Also, the premise of the above is inconsistent with facts per a quick Google search reveals. Aschbren (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whether or not people are 'regularly described' as it or not, the fact is that the intersection of 'being a mother' and 'being a runner' is trivial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, that’s a tautology so logically irrelevant.

  Second, trivial means something “of little value or importance.” On the contrary, the decision of elite runners to have children has profound implications on their professional careers. This has been discussed in memoirs, articles, podcasts, and interviews. Just because something is “of little importance” to one of us, doesn’t mean it’s of little importance to the world beyond Wikipedia. In fact, as noted above the category would be useful and appreciated by readers of Wikipedia.

  The fact that Wikipedia biographies have a category like people born in 1991 would, in fact, be trivial because it’s not connected to the notability of the subject. Again, that is not being challenged.

  As a side benefit, it also would help counter perceptions that Wikipedia suffers from a lack of diversity in its viewpoints. This is irrelevant to the argument, admittedly, but would be a small step in improving the reputation of the Wikipedia brand. Aschbren (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this would be part of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s not righting wrongs to create a categorization that meets all criteria for creation, is noteworthy in its own right, is useful to readers, and is independently verifiable from other sources. I was just pointing out that Wikipedia has been accused of ignoring non-diverse points of view, and this category would help counter that narrative. I even pointed out that’s irrelevant per the guidelines. Aschbren (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, none of the articles mentions this prominently. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the categorization guidelines, “For articles about people, categorize by characteristics of the person the article is about, not characteristics of the article.” Hence being featured prominently in the articles is irrelevant to the category. Also, content exists such that it could be folded into articles in the category. Aschbren (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Folded into, yes, but featured prominently, no. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Being featured prominently is not required for categorization. That’s still basing categorization off the article and not the subject of the article. Aschbren (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unclear definition. Is this for professional runners who gave birth during their career, after it, or before it? All of those? Some of those? Only one's whose career was affected by it, how significantly? Do adoptions count? Do step children count? I see what we're going for though. In my brain, this is along the lines of having a category for Catholic or Muslim runners. I just checked and those categories don't exist. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the category could be further sub-divided as you note doesn’t mean the categorization isn’t valid. If the category becomes unwieldy, sure it could be further divided in the future.

  Independent sources consistently describe included athletes as mothers and as runners, meaning it is objective per categorization guidelines. Given the amount of media attention, memoirs, podcasts, etc that exist on the topic indicate they are not unrelated facets.

  Arguing that x shouldn’t exist because y doesn’t already exist is invalid per categorization guidelines. Also, Muslim Runners may not exist as a category but Muslim Poets does for example. (I have no opinion on whether that should or should not exist.) Aschbren (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial intersection of 2 non connected things. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted above there is significant independent source material about this specific intersectionality indicating they are not unrelated. As Wikipedians, it shouldn’t matter if you or I think they are related (or not). It only matters that other independent sources have consistently and regularly recognized this as a thing that exists, and Wikipedia should reflect that already existing reality. We take no position on whether it should exist or whether it existing is a good thing or a bad thing, but simply noting the existence of the intersectionality is neutral per categorization guidelines. Aschbren (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As Wikipedians, it shouldn’t matter if you or I think they are related (or not)- it does matter, because that's how Wikipedia defines categories. This category is WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NOTDEFINING. Also, you don't need to reply to every single person that disagrees with you, as it's WP:BLUDGEONing. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Independent sources independent and reliably describe the included athletes as mothers and as runners. Simply asserting it does not does not make it so

  Others are assuming the premise (it’s trivial, therefore it’s trivial). I’m pointing out with reasoning that independent sources show otherwise. How is a discussion supposed to take place if we do not discuss? I’m happy to be proven wrong, and I hope others are similarly objective. Please do not assume ill intent. (See guidelines for dispute resolution) Aschbren (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to demonstrate why it's a defining category that should be kept. Of the people in the category, almost half of the article don't mention that the person either has children, most just state it as a 1-2 sentence side thought to the main article, and only 2 or 3 articles have a paragraph or more about competing as a mother/getting back to fitness after giving birth. That is why I don't believe this category is necessary, because being a "running mother" isn't a defining trait for most of the people- they're notable as runners. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Television-screenshots of Pokémon to Category:Animated series screenshots and Category:Pokémon images

Nominator's rationale: Single-member category which is unhelpful for navigation; dual upmerge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:Support-group-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It's currently being used on just two articles, with the result that it's filing them directly in Category:Organization stubs instead of having its own dedicated "Support group stubs" category -- but because both of those articles also already have {{US-org-stub}} on them, which files them in the Category:United States organization stubs subcategory, that means this template is adding absolutely nothing but unnecessary duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure on this. Unlike the stub cats nominated below, this one was proposed at approved at WP:WSS, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/November 2007#Category:Support group stubs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Circumstances can change, though. Even if it was approved 15 years ago, a template can still sometimes end up being so underused that it's no longer adding any value. For example, in 2007 we didn't have nearly as many [Specific Country]-org-stub templates (or their associated categories) as we do now, so it may well have made more sense at that time to have dedicated templates for specific types of organizations — but as things stand in 2024, the only thing it's actually doing anymore is causing two organizations to be duplicate-categorized in both Category:Organization stubs and Category:United States organization stubs at the same time, which neither of them need to be. I'd certainly be willing to withdraw this if somebody could actually find 58 more support group stubs to justify the creation of a full-on Category:Support group stubs category, but if it's just leaving the articles in a parent category that they don't need to be in, because they're already in another subcategory of that same parent, then there's not much point in it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; agree with Bearcat's point about changing circumstances. Consensus can change, especially when circumstances change. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:African cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs (73)
• Propose merging Category:Australian cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs
• Propose merging Category:Kenyan cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs
• Propose merging Category:Oceania cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs
• Propose merging Category:South African cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs
• Propose merging Category:South American cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs
• Propose merging Category:West Indian cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs
• Propose merging Category:Zimbabwean cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Cricket ground stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories not approved through proper process. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any narrowcast topic of their own choice -- the minimum size bar for a stub category is 60 articles, so stub categories have to be approved for creation through WikiProject Stub sorting. None of these were approved through that process at all, however, and none of them have 60 articles in them -- and unlike the similar batch I nominated below, in this set even the continent-level categories can't be salvaged, because even just upmerging the country-level subcategories to their continent-level parents still won't get to 60. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It would be difficult to make lists of 60 notable cricket grounds (whether stub or of decent length) for some of these countries, such as kenya or Zimbabwe. Australia can probably manage it, but with the cat sizes as they stand, none of these stub cats can be justified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Most of these countries won't have 60 notable cricket grounds (SA and Aus being only 2 possible exceptions), and if in future, one of these countries has 60 stub cricket grounds that are all notable, then and only then should these be considered for re-creation (via proper process). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, even if any of this country gets 60+ notable grounds, it's unlikely for all of them to be left as stubs at the same time. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bangladeshi cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Asian cricket ground stubs (76) and Category:Bangladeshi sport stubs (181)
• Propose merging Category:Pakistani cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Asian cricket ground stubs and Category:Pakistani sport stubs (208)
• Propose merging Category:Sri Lankan cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:Asian cricket ground stubs and Category:Sri Lankan sport stubs (106)
• Propose merging Category:Irish cricket ground stubs (0) to Category:European cricket ground stubs (34) and Category:Irish sports venue stubs (89)

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories not approved through proper process. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any narrowcast topic of their own choice -- the minimum size bar for a stub category is 60 articles, so stub categories have to be approved for creation through WikiProject Stub sorting. But none of these were approved through that process at all, and none of them have 60 articles in them -- a couple of sibling categories do surpass that bar, so I'm leaving well enough alone even though they weren't properly approved either, but none of the rest of these are large enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It would be difficult to make lists of 60 notable cricket grounds (whether stub or of decent length) for any of these countries. With the cat sizes as they stand, none of these stub cats can be justified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Most of these countries won't have 60 notable cricket grounds, and if in future, one of these countries has 60 stub cricket grounds that are all notable, then and only then should these be considered for re-creation (via proper process). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, even if any of this country gets 60+ notable grounds, it's unlikely for all of them to be left as stubs at the same time. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:De Havilland Canada Dash 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains its epynomonous article (already in the parent category) and an accidents subcategory (which doesn't belong in the aircraft-by-manufacturer category, and is already categorised correctly otherwise). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.