Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 25

February 25

Category:Costa Rican footballers by populated place

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:Costa Rican footballers. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 03:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2025 (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.

Category:Legendary birds

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#Category:Legendary birds

Category:Collage album covers

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 20 entries. How is having a cover with a collage defining to the album itself? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:56, 26 February 2025 (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.

Films by year of setting

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated categories with 1-2 entries, this is not helpful for navigation. Category:Films set in 79 AD does not have to be merged because the subcategory is already in Category:Films set in 1st-century Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 entries minimum each now (the first containing 5 through its sub-cat) and more can be added... -Mushy Yank. 19:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it matters and that precise information should be written in the article. Categories have a different purpose though, they are for the benefit of quickly finding lots of other articles in the same period, in this case the 1590s. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But that's assuming a reader is looking for "films set in the 1590s" (which they can, by clicking on the category in which films set in 1596 can be found) and nothing more precise. So, even if we keep the category as it is, the reader can find a lot of films set in the 1590s quickly. I therefore still oppose the merge (and deletion). -Mushy Yank. 16:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging will improve navigation. I don't understand your argument. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't understand how it could improve navigation, sorry. The content[category] is already in Cat:Fiction set in YYYY. If you want to know other films set in 1596 and the category does not exist you have to click and open each and every page to check. How is this an improvement? -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (I understand your point.) But imagine you are a reader of, say, the page about Aztec Rex.
    Now imagine you want to know if there are films set in the same year. What categories would appear on the page: Category:Fiction set in 1596 and Category:Films set in the 1590s or only the latter? If it's only the latter, the reader is not helped at all. If it's both, don't you think one category is better instead and that it would avoid the reader clicking on the latter and missing the first etc. In other words, why make things possibly complicated and vague when they can be simple and precise?
    Now, if you want to know if there are films set in the same decade (or even century, millenium, why not?) you click (once, twice or thrice, respectively) and you find them. But it's easier and more natural this way than the other way around. Hope that's clear..... -Mushy Yank. 19:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content will still be in Category:Fiction set in YYYY. Merging makes it easier for overall navigation. Having very narrow intersections is not helpful. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the content [category] is already in Cat:Fiction set in YYYY. How and why would merging it make navigation easier? How and why having precise categories with individual years (an extremely common and populated "intersection as I am sure you know (see Category:Films by year of setting)) is not helpful??? -Mushy Yank. 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion merging does not improve navigation for readers at all. Just having a few entries in a category is not a rationale for merge/deletion if it is defining.Nayyn (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2025 (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.

Category:20th-century executions by California

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. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 03:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: less confusion •Cyberwolf•. talk? 16:39, 25 February 2025 (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.


Category:Sheriffs of Richmond County, New York

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2025 (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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Creative projects related to the Knowles–Carter family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous and improperly populated. Relevant members of the family already have their own creative project trees. --woodensuperman 14:05, 25 February 2025 (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.

People of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#People of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan

Category:The Apprentice contestants

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#Category:The Apprentice contestants

Category:Rugby union in Falkirk

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous, scope refers to the wider area rather than the town which is its seat Crowsus (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2B. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 6 March 2025 (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.


Category:Rugby union in Stirling

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous, scope refers to the wider area rather than the city which is its seat Crowsus (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2B. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 6 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_25&oldid=1279130844"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 25, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.