Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 13

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People in arts occupations from Northern Ireland to Category:People from Northern Ireland in arts occupations

Nominator's rationale: Better word order, which will be consistent with Category:People from Georgia (country) in arts occupations. The disadvantage of the latter format is that it is hard to build by template, and indeed that is probably the reason for the current word order; however, renaming will not now cause additional work, since Place Clichy already removed {{Fooers from Northern Ireland}} from the subcats in 2023 (before fixing the identified fault in that template). – Fayenatic London 22:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and consistency. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:09, 14 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.

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) 07:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Entertainers from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California, by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries

Also propose merging-

• Category:Entertainers from Fresno, California to Category:People from Fresno, California, by occupation
• Category:Entertainers from Fullerton, California to Category:People from Fullerton, California
• Category:Entertainers from Downey, California to Category:People from Downey, California
• Category:Entertainers from Carmel-by-the-Sea, California to Category:People from Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, by occupation

All categories with two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 13 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.

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) 07:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rock bandleaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:American rock bandleaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:British rock bandleaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Dutch rock bandleaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with unclear and subjective inclusion criteria. "Bandleader" was a jazz-specific concept (i.e. specifically in big band jazz) that doesn't really have the same currency in rock music at all, so it's deeply subjective and arbitrary as to who would or wouldn't belong here: the lead singer? The primary songwriter(s)? The person in the band who's deemed to be its primary "creative force", regardless of their instrumental role? Any person whose backing band is eponymously named? Anybody who's the sole constant member of any musical project whose membership otherwise varies from release to release? Every "solo" singer-songwriter who works with a team of session musicians?
The term just doesn't have a straightforward and objective definition in rock music in anything like the same way it did in big band jazz, so it's merely a magnet for editwarring (at least one editor has already tried to make it go away by simply blanking it, even though they've been around more than long enough to know better than that, as well as reverting it back off a couple of people the creator had added it to) rather than a clear, objective or straightforward category. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being the editor who has been around long enough to know better, yeah, I actually regretted that and discovered this notice just now when I went back to self-revert. Apologies to all. I occasionally find categories like this so frustrating as to not take the proper approach. Obviously, I agree with removing this category. As noted, there is no clear definition and it appears to have been added to various articles with no clear rhyme or reason. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 14 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.

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> 14:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lithium, Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need a category for a village of 92 people (2020 census). The two articles of the category (beyond the main one) are churches, which are already categorized in Category:Churches in Perry County, Missouri. Pichpich (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pichpich and I somehow managed to both hit this category at the same time — I was already formulating a deletion nomination on this on my own, but this one had duplicated mine by the time I was done. So just for the record, here's the rationale I used:So obviously I also support deletion. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pichpich and Bearcat. Gjs238 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 14 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.

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) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:WWE RAW CONTROVERSIES to Category:WWE controversies

Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named (why the all-caps?) category that is not defining of its contents. As it stands, the only thing here is List of WWE Raw guest stars, a thing which is not inherently "controversial" -- a few individual guest stars might have been controversial, but the basic phenomenon of guest stars is not a controversy at all, so a list of guest stars is not a "controversy" in and of itself. And the only other thing that was here is Category:WWE controversies, but that's had to be removed as it's a parent topic of this rather than a child subtopic -- and furthermore, since that category already exists, it's far from clear that this category would be needed alongside it: anything that was actually a WWE Raw controversy would, by definition, already be a WWE controversy to begin with, and that category is far from large enough to need exhaustive subcategorization for individual WWE events separately from the parent.
So this isn't necessary for just one thing that isn't even an actual controversy in the first place, and the existing parent category can already cover anything that actually is a controversy. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A couple of other things have since been added to this category after this nomination was completed, but it's still not at all clear that either of them would specifically require a "WWE Raw controversies" category as opposed to the existing "WWE controversies" category either, one of them is just the venue where a controversial event that already has its own separate article happened rather than a controversy in its own right, and even if the category were to be kept it would still have to be renamed to get rid of the ridiculous and unwarranted all-capping. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge per Bearcat. It's questionable whether the only article currently in the category belongs there. Moreover, it's clear that Category:WWE RAW CONTROVERSIES should be an (empty!) subcategory of Category:WWE controversies. Pichpich (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bearcat's update It's not clear why 2007 WWE Draft is in a "controversies" category. And of course, Bearcat is right that American Bank Center has no business there either. Pichpich (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear why any of these things are in this category. Delete.LM2000 (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would support merge per nom (and prune), but from the discussion above, this looks like WP:TNT situation. - jc37 21:39, 4 April 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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Minors who completed medical affirmation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't really think this is a suitable topic for a category, we don't categorise others by whether or not they've had gender-affirming surgery, should we be classifying people who did when they were minors in this way? --woodensuperman 14:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: I note that this was created by a now blocked editor who was topic-banned for trans related editing. --woodensuperman 14:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nondefining and also vague. LeSnail (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining. Possibly interlink the articles in a See also section. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The age at which a transgender person completed medical transition is not a defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 14 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.

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: Speedy delete per G4. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Victoria's Secret Angels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Isn't modeliing by specific company just a WP:PERFCAT? --woodensuperman 13:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m going to have to disagree because for decades the Victoria's Secret Angels were notable on their own (they even collectively have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame) and being an Angel was a defining characteristic of one’s modeling career by countless reliable sources. If you have 44 people in this category who were notable this way from the 90s-2020s I don’t see the need to delete. Trillfendi (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for notability of the article, not for categorisation. Note that this has actually been deleted multiple times before and therefore should actually be speedily deleted. You should have spotted this when you recreated it against consensus. This definitely falls foul of WP:PERFCAT, see this discussion. --woodensuperman 15:44, 13 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.

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> 14:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Biopharmaceutical companies to Category:Pharmaceutical companies

Nominator's rationale: Biopharmaceuticals and pharmaceuticals are now rather synonymous. I recommend merging the two categories and distributing the companies into the appropriate country related categories. Chrisvanlang (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 14 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.

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) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pokamona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Supected sock was banned or blocked last 6 years after created by Sir Sputnik 112.207.123.170 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – no reason given for deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom 120.29.77.232 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. This category serves clearly purpose. And I won't be surprised if these ipss were connected with the banned account. ^SMason_Garrison 03:24, 15 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.

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) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Scherpenzeel, Gelderland to Category:People from Gelderland

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An additional entry to the category has been added. Crispulop (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Two is not eneough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Up to three now. Crispulop (talk) 16:02, 28 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.

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) 07:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Portuguese people by location and occupation to Category:Portuguese people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 03:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the category may be populated with Category:People from Lisbon by occupation and Category:People from Porto by occupation but the existing subcategory is entirely at odds with those two. Having all three directly under Category:Portuguese people by occupation is a much better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 13 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.

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> 14:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Gaborone by occupation to Category:People from Gaborone

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. Redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 03:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 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.

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:Ambassadors to Jordan. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Ambassadors of Kyrgyzstan to Jordan to Category:Ambassadors of Kyrgyzstan and Category:Ambassadors to Jordan

Nominator's rationale: upmerge this underpopulated category. I've already warned the category creator for making underpopulated categories like this. ^SMason_Garrison 02:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as per nom. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support single merge as below. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Single merge to Category:Ambassadors to Jordan only, the article is already in Category:Ambassadors of Kyrgyzstan to Ukraine and others. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 13 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.

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) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Highest-scoring sports matches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Lists of highest-scoring sports matches
• Propose renaming Category:Highest-scoring association football matches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Lists of highest-scoring association football matches

Nominator's rationale: A rename will make the purpose of these categories more explicit and better matches the current content. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Should be "Lists" with an 's'. I updated the nom, feel free to revert. - jc37 21:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per categories' contents. - jc37 21:43, 4 April 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Long words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. How long does a word need to be to be considered long? (rhetorical) –Aidan721 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Serves a useful purpose in its own right, and as a parent for Category:Longest words by language and Longest words. If necessary, we can stipulate a limit, or even rename as, something like "Category:Words with NN or more characters". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An arbitrary limit would violate WP:OCMISC. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT per nom. --woodensuperman 12:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:SHAREDNAME. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclined to keep despite the policy arguments, because it works, and is defining for all the current contents. If not kept, partial merge moving the subcat Category:Longest words by language up into Category:Longest things, as its removal from that hierarchy would plainly be incorrect. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ARBITRARYCAT is about arbitrary cut-off points, and this is about words that are notable for their length, regardless of the number of letters. The "characteristics of the name" part of WP:SHAREDNAME does not apply if the name is the subject of the article content to which the category applies (or articles about names would have to be uncategorised). There is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, but this would be a reasonable exception (as a defining characteristic and not non-neutral or disputed). Peter James (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to appropriate subcats of Category:Longest words by language (which then should be categorised in the parents: Category:Words and Category:Longest things) and then Delete - I think just saying "words" out of context makes this a catch-all. I agree with the WP:ARBITRARYCAT concerns (and for that reason, "longest" would be better than "long"), but I also agree with Fayenatic london, that this seems like an WP:IAR situation. However, the words should be sorted by language to make things clearer. For one thing, prefixes and suffixes can have different usages depending on the language, so it's better for our readers if like is compared to like. Otherwise, this just becomes a catch-all. - jc37 21:53, 4 April 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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Italian traumatologists to Category:Traumatologists

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Italian surgeons. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 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.