Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30

January 30

Category:People by city

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/rename as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk β€’ he/they) 01:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more "by city" nominations
Nominator's rationale: People and occupations are not unique across types of populated places (e.g. cities, towns, villages, etc.). Merge/rename per WP:OVERLAPCAT. It is not productive to have the tree split by type of place. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, cities are invariably very large populated places, with which people often have a strong and lasting connection. Long-established method of categorisation. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "very large populated places" is not necessarily true, e.g. the city of Nieuwpoort, South Holland contains less than 2000 or less than 1000 people, dependent on how you count. Cities is more a matter of history than of size. The only sensible definition of a city is a circular definition: a city is a populated place that received city status. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The consensus has been moving in this direction. The entire US tree was renamed to populated place because the itnersection of population size and occupation etc are not defining or stable. SMasonGarrison 02:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Here from an alert for "mathematicians by city" which is a highly non-defining intersection, unstable, and unusable for navigation (is it the city they live in, the city their employer is named after, or the city their employer is actually located in, and anyway who remembers universities by what city they are in?).
β€”David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for merging, in the current set-up it is more difficult to navigate from people from a specific town to people from a specific city - in comparison to navigating from people from one specific city to people from another specific city. That difference in ease of navigation does not make any sense. Weak support for renaming, rename for consistency reasons. I am assuming that, in practice, people from city categories already serve as people from populated places categories if no other categories exist, so that renaming is not so urgent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; populated place is a simpler, more stable categorization system than having to maintain trees for city, town and village. γƒŸγƒ©P@Miraclepine 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per multiple precedents. I used to argue to keep the hierarchy of City categories, but large bites have already been taken out of it, so what's left may as well also go to Populated places. – Fayenatic London 20:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is general consensus that we should use populated place for all categories, except those about populated places themselves (e.g. the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Montgomery County, Texas) where there is a distinction in the law or in official censuses. –LaundryPizza03 (dcΜ„) 21:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is little actual distinction between the terms used for a populated place and the way the category tree works. Whether it is a city, town, or village, we still categorize people by location of birth and/or long-term residence. Dimadick (talk) 06:52, 1 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:Feroniella

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 β€’ he/they) 01:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category as it can only possibly contain one article and a redirect to the article (it is a monotypic genus). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 30 January 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.

Olympic sports players by year

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#Olympic sports players by year

Category:19th-century Olympic competitors by year

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 β€’ he/they) 01:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant / unnecessary category. Included in Category:Summer Olympics competitors by year and categories for the 20th and 21st century do not exist, nor would they be particularly helpful given the number of events (31 total). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 30 January 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 Pan American Games competitors by year

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 β€’ he/they) 01:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:20th-century Pan American Games competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:21st-century Pan American Games competitors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary split of Category:Pan American Games competitors by year, which included all 19 entries in these sub categories anyways, making it redundant. The relevant navbox (Template:Pan American Games) also doesn't differentiate by century. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 30 January 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:Recreation 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. HouseBlaster (talk β€’ he/they) 01:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant container layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 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:Sports venues in Romania 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. HouseBlaster (talk β€’ he/they) 01:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant container categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 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:Sports venues in Cherkasy

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/delete as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk β€’ he/they) 01:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 article. Merge per WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 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:Sports venues in Bor, Serbia

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 β€’ he/they) 01:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 article. The lone article is already in Category:Football venues in Serbia. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8#Category:English video bloggers

7th century mass cleanup

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 nominated. HouseBlaster (talk β€’ he/they) 01:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated due to the topic being in the distant past. -- Beland (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It impedes navigation to have categories for a single article, as is the case with most of these. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge. Much work to REMOVE information. Years are intrinsic categories. They also are among those categories most likely to grow over time (I know, I do a lot of them). The solution to the navigation problem is to put a good breadcrumb template at the top... those things which should be at the top of any Years category anyway... one which automatically skips empty categories and grows organically as new year categories are added. If one is really dedicated to a project to make Years navigation easier in these situations, rather than theoretically never-ending consolidation projects that remove year specificity and require discussions like these, maybe there can be a (it would seem quick) project to determine the one best year breadcrumb navigation template that can work for any Years category, promote it, and copy it in where needed, fixing the current year-nav template hodgepodge. This would also seem much much much easier a change to automate. Doprendek (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most dates before the Middle Ages are uncertain at the year level. –LaundryPizza03 (dcΜ„) 11:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge I'm not aware of any guideline that says small categories shouldn't exist. These existing categories will help users navigate to more specific information. Koopinator (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, the current setup acts as a barrier to navigation. Currently it takes two steps to get from Chrysanthemum Throne to Sack of Thebes, after the merge only one step. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I will plead my case in more detail. I am currently working on a project to list the most well-known person to die in every year (measured via https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/ ). The massviews tool gathers all articles in a specific category (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:90_BC_deaths) and it will sort them based on pageviews. If I use a script that automatically cycles through all the death year categories, I can systematically pull the most well-known person to die in every year. Merging the categories would remove that ease and would require me to manually review many pages. I believe there are probably other use cases where specific birth and death years help users gather specific information. Koopinator (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Currently it takes two steps to get from Chrysanthemum Throne to Sack of Thebes..."
    I'm sorry... why should such a thing even be a goal of Wikipedia categorization? Why should two articles about happenings on two sides of the world not being shown together be an argument for merging categories? Doprendek (talk) 04:12, 3 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:Recreation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 11#Category:Recreation

Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin

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. βœ—plicit 00:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a category at this level, and it breaks with, and confuses, the long-established hierarchy of categories. English civil parishes are categorised by a category for their district or unitary authority (ie the smallest larger unit which includes them), and a category "Civil parishes in [county]" (by ceremonial county, not by unitary authority). There is an established hierarchy at Category:Civil parishes in England by county. Note that Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire has a note, present for many years, showing its scope as "Civil parishes in the county of Shropshire, including the borough of Telford and Wrekin." (Shropshire is a somewhat confusing area to consider, as the ceremonial county and the smaller unitary authority area share the same name.)
Note that when this category was added to a group of parishes, Category:Telford and Wrekin was removed, so this will need to be replaced in any cleanup if this category is deleted. PamD 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that creation was to declutter the already over cluttered Telford and Wrekin category. It was to add the civil parishes to a seperate sub category to allow people interested in parishes or local history to see the parishes of Telford and Wrekin. The issue with the Shropshire one is that it covers the whole county but also there are two unitary areas which cover different sizes in Shropshire. With telford have just shy of 30 civil parishes as Telford itself is unparished. It allows for the other cps to be given a platform of their own in a category shy of Telford and Wrekin category. As @Crouch, Swale has previously told me that category is not needed. So it allows the category to be found in the Telford and Wrekin category but without directing or cluttering the mainspace itself. Neatly if you will. Since none of these cps answer to Shropshire Council but T&W Council. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonofBatley and JMF: Telford and Wrekin is completely parished and has been since 1988[1]. Dawley, Oakengates and Wellington were unparished before then but the rest of the district has always been parished. As can be seen at Mapit Telford and Wrekin doesn't show up in the lists of unparished part(s) of districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does Telford as in central Telford like the centre plaza Southwater town park and the railway station have a parish council? @Crouch, Swale? Just wondering DragonofBatley (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonofBatley: Southwater is in Great Dawley parish[2], the central station is in Lawley and Overdale[3]. There isn't a parish called just "Telford" but the town has several parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Lawley and Overdale parish, which has a parish council, covers the central area of Telford and has a ward called "Town Centre". PamD 23:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dcΜ„) 02:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the subcategories listed by Peter James show there is indeed a long established history of categorising by large districts, boroughs or unitary authorities. Telford and Wrekin is a substantial area with 28 parishes. The category also helps de-clutter and organise the Telford and Wrekin category. Sionk (talk) 20:26, 30 January 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:Intersectional feminists

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 β€’ he/they) 01:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being a feminist and a type of feminism. At the very least, the child categories need to be purged/restored to the parent category. For example, being a Jewish feminist doesn't mean that they're an intersectional feminist. SMasonGarrison 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte πŸ‘Έβ™₯ 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very consistent type of feminism. LIrala (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LIrala's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk β€’ he/they) 19:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough participation to reach consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dcΜ„) 02:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Biography been notified. –LaundryPizza03 (dcΜ„) 02:05, 30 January 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8#Category:New towns by decade

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_30&oldid=1278289088"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.