Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8

February 8

Category:Fictional burn survivors

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) 07:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Selective merge Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_25#Category:Burn_survivors_in_fiction the decision was to move to Fiction about burn survivors, not Fictional burn survivors. It was explicitly considered. SMasonGarrison 20:37, 8 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:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Ankara

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. Somewhat thorough discussion, and the circumstances have changed enough that relisting is unlikely to be productive. A renomination solely focused on WP:DEFINING (or similar concerns unrelated to size) might find consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:51, 8 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:Ancient Christian saints 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: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The places for the subcategories in Ancient Rome were more of provinces/city-states than the modern city/populated place. With only 3 subcategories, this layer is not that useful for navigation. Additionally all 3 subcategories are of Roman places so Category:Ancient Roman saints is a better target than Category:Ancient Christian saints. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:47, 8 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:Universities in Sumgait

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) 00:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for universit"ies" in a city whose article explicitly says that there's only one university in it. So this isn't necessary for just one thing if it can never have anything else added to it, and upmerging isn't necessary as the university was left in both Category:Sumgait and Category:Universities in Azerbaijan alongside this. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 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:People from Kuala Belait

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) 00:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The lone article is of a person from the colonial period. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:31, 8 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:English video bloggers

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: Consensus against merging. Editors argued that video bloggers are often YouTubers, but those opposing the merge argued that YouTube is not the only video sharing/blogging platform and that YouTube hosts content other than video blogs, a YouTuber is not always a video blogger and a video blogger is not always a YouTuber. (non-admin closure) TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing the merge of “English video bloggers” into “English YouTubers” because there is currently no distinction between how the two terms are being used. Almost every single person in this category is described as a “YouTuber” rather than a video blogger on their page. Additionally, the people listed on this page made/make a wide variety of content posted to YouTube (music, comedy sketches, videos of creating art). “Video blogger” is essentially being used as a synonym for “YouTuber,” so I believe the best thing to do is just merge this category into the English YouTubers category. Yeahirlydk (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:44, 8 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:15th-century BC religious leaders

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) 00:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated poorly-populated categories, move the only article to Category:Ancient religious leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 8 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:Fictional people from Haywards Heath

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) 00:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Haywards Heath and (maybe) Category:Fictional English people. Only one entry - which is about a series of books rather than a fictional person), and seems unlikely to ever be expandable. The only towns or cities in England with categories of this sort are London (popn. 8 million), Liverpool (500,000), Manchester (600,000), Newcastle-upon-Tyne (300,000), and this one (30,000). Grutness...wha? 09:22, 8 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:Recipients of the Independence Day Award

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) 00:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: more specific Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 08:29, 8 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:American mathematicians 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:Mathematicians by populated place. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:American mathematicians by populated place to Category:Mathematicians by populated place in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Not everyone living and working in the United States is "American". This is a category for sorting people by where they live and are practicing a particular occupation; not a category for designating citizenship or nationality. We shouldn't confuse the two. I am not sure how to do a bundled nom, but I would nominate all of the cats at Category:American people by occupation and populated place and Category:People by nationality and occupation and populated place to mirror this change because when you get down to the small cats like Category:Actors from New York City; it could have many people who aren't "American" in that cat but who are working actors who live in NYC. I don't think we can or should make this category tree nationality/citizenship dependent because where someone lives and works is not necessarily tied to either of those two criteria. 4meter4 (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate subcategories for upmerging, they are a trivial intersection between occupation and place of birth. Oppose the current nomination but merely for consistency reasons. I'd be ok with renaming all nationality categories to country categories. Nationality is a modern concept that we also anachronistically apply to periods in history when the concept did not exist yet. And even in modern times, the country where one lives is more relevant than the passport one has. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree that the people in these cats are there because of “birth”. At least when I apply these cats I try to place them based on where someone was doing their job (although I am sure I have used it the other way too before thinking about this issue more recently). For example a doctor born in California but working at NYU should be categorized in Doctors from New York City because that is where that are practicing medicine. That would seem clear and defining. Misuse of cats is not a valid reason to remove a category. Granted we could probably do a better job communicating how to use the category tree with an explanatory note on each cat page in this tree to encourage people to place cats differently in this area by discouraging people to use place of birth in the occupation by location cats and sort by where they actually were working/employed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently we agree on this matter. But at the same time the people by populated place categories are polluted by birth-only assignment to such an extent that they better be blown up and started over again. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize with that perspective but I think it would be better to try and remove inappropriate people rather than delete the categories.4meter4 (talk) 10:51, 8 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:Dancers by populated place in New York (state)

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: implement the alt proposal. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly redundant category layers. Large tree structure for one subcategory. Not useful for navigation in any manner. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:14, 8 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:New towns by decade

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 hence rename to "planned communities". * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate establishments category for planned communities/new towns. For consistency, merge to the populated places tree, diffusing by year where applicable. WP:OVERLAPCAT –Aidan721 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If kept, rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge these examples, per nomination. In my view a separate discussion would be needed to rename the category tree from "new towns" to "planned communities" (which may have its merits). At the moment, many of the populated places in these "started in the" categories are not "towns" and several of these categories have a negligible number of suitable articles to make them worthwhile as a navigation aid. Sionk (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to planned communities per 4meter4, but agree that additional cleanup work is needed per Sionk. it's lio! | talk | work 09:09, 23 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:Magical superheroes / supervillains

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) 00:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start off with, just as in professional wrestling, a hero can do a face turn to a villain/"heel" (and vice-versa). So splitting these is subjective WP:OR.

Besides that, all of the category members are comics characters, which should already be in Category:Comics characters who use magic or one of its subcats. Most of these will end up in the DC or Marvel subcats. - jc37 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 8 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.

eponymous Massachusetts categories

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 Alford. Merge the rest. If more than one article can be placed in the Alford category, it can be recreated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't believe these got opposed at speedy, but here we are... All the nominated categories contain a single eponymous article of the same name and were recently created by a single user. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • @MetricHistory and TSventon: pinging participants from the speedy discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all No need for a "consistency" of skeletons containing nothing. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, it is not helpful at all that you need to go into a category in order to read the only article of that category. After the merge you can read the article instantly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Alford and Avon, Keep the Blandford, Bernardston, and Bellingham categories as they've been sufficiently populated.--User:Namiba 16:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep all Avon has subsequently also been populated. It appears that other users are actually using the categories as intended, which was actually the point of creating them in the first place. If you build it, they will come. As of this message, only Alford remains populated with a single article. It is only a matter of time before it, too becomes populated. MetricHistory (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Alford could benefit from a subcat Category:People from Alford, Massachusetts of which there would be at least two obvious members: Carolyn Gold Heilbrun and John W. Hulbert. Given that the objection was raised to me, I will refrain from creating this subcat myself, as long as the objection holds. However, if the objection had not been raised, I would have created it in due time as I continued my project. It appears that the main basis of objection was that the project was not yet complete, yet others appear to be completing it for me. MetricHistory (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all except for Alford, Massachusetts. There are sub categories in each of the other towns as well as articles. There is a reasonable expectation of future articles being added to some of these.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, there is a subcat intended for Alford, as well, and I do believe there is a "reasonable expectation of future articles" as well. The main objection, as I understand it, was that my work was not finished, so the objector raised his issue before the work could be completed, thus creating an odd self-fulfilling prophecy. It must be remembered that complex projects take time to complete and that a work in progress is not the final result. MetricHistory (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A straightforward merge as nominated can no longer be done, but still this is little content for tiny places and all of this can better be categorized at county level. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The plan is to have all of the municipalities as subcats of their respective counties. For all practical purposes, county government no longer exists in Massachusetts, and they exist only as geographical and historical units. Yes, some towns may be quite small, but there is still a very practical purpose for having a top-level cat for each of the 351 municipalities. What does not make sense is to have cats for only a selected subset of municipalities. There should be no need for a secret decoder bracelet for which municipalities do and do not exist as top-level cats. Remember, each of these cats do not exist in isolation. They exist as part of a larger whole. MetricHistory (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, my position is Keep all, including Alford, Massachusetts. I fully intend to "fix" Alford as soon as the ban on my editing it is lifted, which would bring it into compliance. Again, the main objection seems to have been that I had not completed my work, therefore I should be prohibited from completing it because it was incomplete. That would be absurd. The objection was prematurely made on a work in progress. MetricHistory (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus that WP:C2F should apply in this case, and maybe some which are also underpopulated should also be upmerged. I will reping all participants to ask for their updated thoughts know that not all categories fit the criteria for C2F.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MetricHistory, Marcocapelle, and 4meter4: You already expressed an updated opinion; pinging you for completeness. @Aidan721, Pppery, TSventon, and Namiba: Thoughts on the above? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that every city/town must have a corresponding WP category because of one user's intentions is ridiculous and goes against years of consensus at WP. I'm OK with keeping the first 4 categories since Namiba has done the work of populating with content. However, there is no reason to keep Category:Alford, Massachusetts given it includes only the eponymous article. Categories like these are only useful when there is plenty of content to navigate between. Otherwise, the county of higher subdivision level is a better category. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Alford. While I agree that the completeness of 1 category for every town would be ideal, I don't think it helps readers if there is no content. There is no need for a category which doesn't categorize anything. I suggest looking into whether there are any articles which might be written about topics in Alford, writing them, and then creating it when there are several articles on notable topics.--User:Namiba 15:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Alford, keep the others. Consistency of handling is not a required trait of the category system — that is, the rule is not that every populated place that exists automatically gets its own eponymous category as a matter of course. Navigability, however, is a necessary trait of the category system, and navigability is not served by obsessively microcategorizing everything down to the narrowest possible categories of just one thing — a populated place only needs its own eponymous category if there are several things in that place that need to be categorized together, and does not need one if the only thing available to file in it is the eponym itself. So Alford would need more than just itself to become justified, but the others all have more contents in them. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_8&oldid=1281081215"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.