Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Category:Ukrainian war crimes

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(added latter)

Nominator's rationale: Category implies that the articles in it are confirmed war crimes. There is only article in this category. There are other categories that are more appropriate for articles of this nature (Category:War crimes in Ukraine and Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army). Until there are confirmed and convicted war crimes this category could be abused. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if abuse is an issue the whole tree of Category:War crimes committed by country should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and limit scope -- Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Forces might be appropriate, but I note that several of the items are contested: how can we be sure which side is publicising false flag issues or exaggerating; or portraying accidental mis-targeting as intentional? Some Russian war crimes in Ukraine (e.g. at Bucha) seem well evidenced, but we have not heard the Russian side of the story. A parallel Category:War crimes committed by the Russian Forces in Ukraine would also be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A parallel Category:War crimes committed by the Russian Forces in Ukraine would also be needed

We already have that, called Category:Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron. GenuineArt (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming just the Ukrainian (and Russian) category. If this is the way to go there should be a nomination of the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added the rest of the tree per Marcocapelle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 13:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By co-nominating the whole tree it becomes obvious that an immediate rename to army categories may well lead to a lot of errors. The article in the Albanian category is 1901 massacres of Serbs deals with a massacre that happened even before Albania became an independent country. If we need categories by army rather than by country the steps should be: 1. create categories by army as subcategories of the existing country categories, 2. (optional) nominate the country categories for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Armies are not responsible for war crimes, their governments are the ones orchestrating them. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- In many cases, no one has proved that the event is a war crime. In many cases, the perpetrator may argue that their actions were justified. IN other cases, "massacres by fooland" would be a NPOV title. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the listed categories. There is one important distinction here. Something like Category:United States war crimes or Category:Russian war crimes implies war crimes committed by a state (like Russia) or by citizens of Russia, not war crimes committed by an ethnic group, i.e. Russians. In the latter case I would say "delete". Only Category:Ukrainian war crimes is indeed concerning because it currently includes only one sub-cat, Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but that Army was not a state actor; the Ukraine did not exist as a state at that time. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it's perfectly named category, it contains crimes comitted by Ukrainian state and Ukrainian organisations such as OUN-UPA Marcelus (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the listed categories. I think it should be kept, if it's not confirmed then it can be mentioned in the article. -Artanisen (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (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:Kentucky women artists

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 07:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Kentucky women artists to Category:American women artists, Category:Artists from Kentucky and Category:Women in Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial triple intersection between state, occupation and gender. No other American states have a women artists subcategory. See also WP:EGRS for the limited application of intersections with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 13:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Women artists from Kentucky, for consistency. Category:American women artists is large enough to diffuse by state; that category has 574 outside of its subcategories, and this one has 30. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:39, 19 August 2022 (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:Populated places in Uttara

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:Neighbourhoods in Dhaka and Category:Uttara. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Uttara to Category:Areas of Uttara (or Category:Neighbourhoods in Uttara)

Nominator's rationale: rename, Uttara (town) is a suburb of Dhaka and a populated place itself. The category contains areas within Uttara. We use the term "populated places" for cities, towns and villages. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Being in Dhaka explains it better. GenuineArt (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GenuineArt is right, it better be merged to Category:Neighbourhoods in Dhaka and Category:Uttara. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per norm. Mehedi Abedin 22:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkl talk 19:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:39, 19 August 2022 (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:NHS hospitals in South East England

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:NHS hospitals in England. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:NHS hospitals in South East England to Category:NHS hospitals in England

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary geographical category. The English NHS has been divided into regions quite a few times, but South East England has never been one of them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I see your reasoning but South East England is a defined region and it is useful to break up the very large category of NHS hospitals in England. Also, London is not an NHS region (i.e. there is no such thing as NHS London) but such a category still exists. Elshad (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is a very unusual geographical classification. Hospitals are already geographically categorized as subcategories of Category:Hospitals in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
South East England is not a defined region in the NHS, and I dont think it ever has been. Rathfelder (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- A better solution would be to split the target according to the Standard English regions, which still exist though they are less used by government than they used to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Think all these are categorised by county, and that is sufficient. Given that these are almost all NHS organisations it doesnt make sense to use a geography not used by the NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing objection -- Categorisation by county (which would include London (defined as Greater London) seems appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2022 (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:Yeomen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 27#Category:Yeomen

Category:Jeopardy! guest hosts

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. Note that the information is already mentioned in Jeopardy!#Hosts, so listification is already there. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Jeopardy! guest hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per the same discussion and reasoning here, specifically Animalparty's points re: WP:PERFCAT PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for a guest host this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2022 (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:Companies operating former Boston and Maine Corporation lines

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 27#Category:Companies operating former Boston and Maine Corporation lines

Category:Palatines of the Kingdom of Hungary

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:Palatines of Hungary. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Palatines of the Kingdom of Hungary to Category:Palatines of Hungary

Nominator's rationale: per WP:MOSTCOMMON and main article name Norden1990 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support there is no substantial difference between those two, but the shorter name is preferable Marcelus (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: if you say the shorter name is preferable you are supporting the nomination rather than opposing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad, I was confused Marcelus (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2022 (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:Griffin Communications

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 27#Category:Griffin Communications

Category:Characters adapted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Characters adapted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters for characters in the MCU that got their own articles, and Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe character lists for the rest. There is no need to categorize comic book characters here. Besides, this category was created and deleted several times already, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#Category:Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Cambalachero (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and prior discussions. I'm not sure if G4 applies to categories, but it should. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Zoo (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kpddg ^(talk) 10:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't believe it happened again, this is like the 4th time we have to delete this.★Trekker (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should have this WP:SALTed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That wouldn't help, the premise of this category has been used under different names. Cambalachero (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only the 4th time? I'm thinking more like 10th. But yes, it is always recreated under a different name. BOZ (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I thought of salting too but that wouldn't work in this case. That's why I brought up G4, but I don't know if categories are eligible for that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        All pages, including categories, are eligible for G4 (and for G1 and for G5 etc.). Categories only differ in the sense that there additional criteria specifically for category deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Good to know. Next time, just skip CfD altogether and go the G4 route. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2022 (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:Political prisonership controversies

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:Political imprisonment. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Political prisonership controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A poorly defined category (i.e. not defined at all except for the name), with a single article, and a single parent category. Upmerge and move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a controversial topic by nature, so a controversies subcategory does not make much sense. Merge to Category:Political imprisonment since there is only a topic article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2022 (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:Hoàng Vĩnh Lộc

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 WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hoàng Vĩnh Lộc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hoàng Vĩnh Lộc, director of Faceless Lover, has no article. To judge from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4271583#sitelinks-wikipedia (related to Faceless Lover) there is no article in Vietnam-wiki or Russian-wiki either. (There is now a brief as yet unsourced article but the category should still be deleted as it is not needed.) Oculi (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a Asian filmmaker who was well-known in whole world. Besides, his some film was preserve in US archive office. He is only "un-known" by GenZ who like "cancel" and negative the past. They alway think, cosmos' history only began from 2010, before that time only dark and night. (Betabum (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per WP:OCEPON. The eponymous article and the film article already link to each other directly, so the category is entirely redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Betabum who created this category keeps removing the cfd tag. Could a passing admin stress that this is not permitted? Oculi (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2022 (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:Songs about ducks

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Songs about ducks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A collection of song titles with the word 'duck' in it doesn't make a category. WP:CATDEF, WP:SHAREDNAME and possibly WP:V applies. Richhoncho (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of many problems with the 'in popular culture'. Sigh. How is this different from Category:Television series about ducks and like? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not seriously about ducks. Take for example a look at 'Round the World with the Rubber Duck. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2022 (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 of the Russian Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 27#Category:People of the Russian Empire

Category:Ngāi Tahu

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: split. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Ngāi Tahu to Category:Ngāi Tahu and Category:Ngāi Tahu people

Nominator's rationale: The category contains mostly people, but also includes a variety of important non-person articles (including legal contracts and places affiliated to the tribe). The new category (Ngāi Tahu people) would more accurately categorise people affiliated to the iwi. — HTGS (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense. Technically this would not require a CfD discussion, but this split is quite a big job so I can imagine that consensus is sought upfront. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existing category is a sub-category of Category:New Zealand Māori people by waka, iwi, hapū or whanau, one of about 84 such sub-categories, all similarly named, without the additional word people. If the change is to be made, then the whole category tree should be reorganised, for all iwi, not just Ngāi Tahu, along the lines of:

Category:Māori

To maintain consistency, I don't think that Ngāi Tahu should be changed in isolation. Paora (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to start with splitting biographies to "people" subcategories and after that is finished evaluate if further splitting is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Paora. It needs a comprehensive approach. Schwede 66 07:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree about changes for every iwi—as Marcocapelle surmised I only posted Ngāi Tahu to test for disagreement. My intention was to make the move and then repeat for each iwi in turn. I hadn’t considered further subcategories (marae, history, etc.), and planned to assess those as necessary once people were done. — HTGS (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: No problem with that approach. There doesn't seem to be any objection, so I'd say go for it! Paora (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2022 (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.