Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 1

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< March 31
April 2 >

April 1

edit

Category:Films set in 5th-century Byzantine Empire

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are single-article isolated categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Oppose merging). I cannot see why this cross-categorisation is not helpful. For instance when you look at Category:Works set in the Roman Empire it gives you a very clear vision of the way the fictions are distributed in time. Without this cross-categorisation, it wouldn't. -Mushy Yank. 22:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Degerfors

edit
Nominator's rationale: One article; does not help navigation Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relations of Georgia (country) and its former colonizers

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, Georgia has never been a colony of the Ottoman or Russian Empire, it was simply part of those empires. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Bohuslän

edit
Nominator's rationale: One article; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beanpot Tournament Winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Winning this tournament is a non-defining characteristic of a hockey player. As per WP:OCAWARD it is overcategorization. Here is the relevant informal discussion suggesting its deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the consensus, than I won't fight it. I guess I let my boston bias get the best of me. BuckeyeBruin (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MikeVitale 02:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Attorneys

edit
Nominator's rationale: "United States Attorney" is a position that should be rendered in lowercase when it's plural, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this would align these categories with the similar Category:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. As well as pages such as:
  1. List of United States attorneys appointed by Donald Trump
  2. List of United States attorneys appointed by Joe Biden
  3. List of United States attorneys for Wisconsin
  4. List of United States attorneys for the Eastern District of Arkansas
  5. List of United States attorneys for the Southern District of Florida. Woko Sapien (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per MOS:JOBTITLES... It's clearly plural and should be lowercase.
—Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who own aquariums containing all of the fish they have been slapped with

edit
Nominator's rationale: Annual serious nomination of inappropriate joke categories on April Fools Day. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MALVOLIO, which, in part, makes the case that such user categories contribute positively to collaborative editing. If you aren't amused, then don't look at it. We have a consensus that humorous user categories are permitted in userspace, so long as they don't create problems in mainspace and aren't red. The fact that it was created on April 1 makes no difference. If this stuff gets yer dander up, somebody should trout-slap you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regarding "Inappropriate types of user categories", the category "Wikipedians who own aquariums containing all of the fish they have been slapped with" isn't patently false (partly true, partly metaphorical) nonsensical (WP:TROUT makes sense), undecipherable (it is easy to understand, i.e. 'I make mistakes'), or created primarily for humorous or satirical purposes (it can be interpreted as purely humorous or satirical, but also as confessional or as a sign of humility). If others don't agree, a hard redirect per Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages is another solution. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's totally motivated reasoning. This was obviously created for humorous or satirical purposes. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Viriditas (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that the nom in this CfD is being a humorless annoyance, who should find something more important to do, like improving content, or at least not starting a CfD that is not based in policy, but just based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fishy and ich-y behaviour of others aside (though I myself am no angel), and while I'm fully sympathetic to the school of thought of that we oto do something about all these roefully unfunny April Fool's jokes (and those who commit the cardinal sin of making them), I think the community is betta off with this categoby. E-fish-ent and koi way of letting other editors know the scale of any past mistakes and a healthy way of dealing with any gillt without resorting to platytudes. Besides, caring for the trout is a much better idea than carping on about them, or becoming apoplecotic, after all! (Concur with other !keeps) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Like. (As long as no one takes the bait!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they do, I suppose I shall have to find some way to mollyfy them... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful category that doesn't promote any sort of collaboration. --Gonnym (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. No accurate reason given for deletion of this category except a link to another CfD. Because it is annual, is not a reason to delete. And if the nominator did not take the time to explain why this should be deleted, I consider we should not waste ours explaining why it could be kept.-Mushy Yank. 22:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is that it violates WP:OC/U#jokes. But link to precedent by itself would be a valid reason and these have historically been uncontroverisially deleted, so I saw no need to spell it out further. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That reply leads me to want to explain some more about why I find this nomination troubling. This sort of thing led me to coauthor WP:MALVOLIO, where it is pointed out that, sometimes, there are walled gardens in project space, where most editors just aren't interested enough to pay attention until something affects them directly, and where a few editors get together to codify pet peeves and claim that this must be consensus. I think that WP:OC/U#jokes may be an example of this, and it's worth looking at the discussion-by-edit-summary that Pppery and I had yesterday, about just that: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Yesterday, I didn't think it was worth it for me to belabor any further the issue of "precedent", so I just said "thanks" and dropped it, but now, I might as well link to this: [5]. Doesn't exactly fit with the claimed "precedent", now does it? (And no, I don't think it's listed at the page of precedents.) If you read my comments there, I summarize past discussions about such user categories. Myself, I'm quite willing to delete user categories that are really unhelpful, so I'm not rigid about this: [6] (but oh look, there's another accusation of canvassing). If you follow that link to another CfD in the nominating statement, it leads to a Russian doll of successive links, from April 1 year-to-year, all of them part of a walled garden with just a few editors participating. User categories like that one about pooping really don't do anything to improve the project, but others, like the one nominated here, actually do accomplish the benefit of enhancing collaboration among editors. So long as Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories and its subcategories remain well-populated and the sky doesn't fall, there is no community consensus that these things should be trashed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for making that clear. A "link to precedent" by itself does not strike me as a valid reason to delete any given category/page, no, sorry, especially if your argument seems in fact to be that all (not just one) similar (and similar how? to what extent?) categories have "historically been uncontroversially deleted". Tryptofish's link to a clear counter-example would invalidate that argument anyway. I therefore still think the original nomination is flawed and stand by my SK, but as you kindly took the time to explain what you meant and as I am not sure SK still applies when the (absent) nomination rationale is made clear during the Afd, you can consider my !vote is a (simple) Keep, if that matters. Viriditas explained very clearly why this category does not correspond to what WP:OC/U#jokes describes, anyway. Leaving it at that. -Mushy Yank. 23:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the nomination's caviar-lier attitude has not won me over. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Housing rights activists from New Orleans

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football clubs in Tatuí

edit
Nominator's rationale: A category without any meaning, Tatuí had only one professional team and should be allocated with the other defunct teams in the state of São Paulo. Svartner (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forteana

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, paranormal is too specific for some Fortean phenomenon, and does not always apply to subjects such as cryptozoology, and UFOolgy. 50.86.27.105 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all contents of this category with either Category:Paranormal, Category:Supernatural, or any of their respective subcategories. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upcoming Indian films

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 06:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see Upcoming films for any other country apart from Philippines (which has only one entry). Upcoming films by language seems just enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also Category:Indian films so there is no objection to country categories per se, is there? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Upcoming American films and other alike categories are created, I may withdraw this nomination. Moreover, one of the categories in Upcoming Indian films improperly contains Upcoming Tamil-language films, since more than two countries produce Tamil films. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Kailash29792, this is not a valid reason for deletion. Precisely: since more than two countries produce Tamil films a category by country is helpful and even necessary. Feel free to create categories for other countries, including the United States. As you say Philippines has a category and just like released films are categorised both in country+language categories, upcoming films could (and should) be categorised in both.-Mushy Yank. 22:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC) (There is a Category:Upcoming American television series, fwiw.[reply]
  • Keep Logical categorization for films thar are not yet released. Can also be a wrapper for future release years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:57, 7 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.

Category:Male chefs from Tokyo

edit
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. There's not need to intersect populated place by occupation and sex. If not dual merged, it should be made a non-diffusing category SMasonGarrison 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Culinary Federation Certified Master Chefs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining certification SMasonGarrison 00:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hmong American chefs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category that might not meet the EGRS bar SMasonGarrison 00:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this category was created pursuing the uptick in literature about Hmong cuisine and those who notably make it (e.g. Hmong cuisine#Notable figures, whose careers and biographies are defined by their ethnicity and ethnic cuisine WP:EGRS/I: "For example, when intersecting with occupation, people should only be so categorized if this has significant bearing on their career.") - and specifically in preparation for edit-a-thons focused on Hmong biographies (see upcoming Wikipedia:Meetup/Minnesota/April 2025 Minnesota User Group Meeting#Events). It's expected to have more entries within this year. Pingnova (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend starting with Category:Hmong chefs rather than with something at the interseciton of ethnicity+ nationality+ occupation. SMasonGarrison 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's agreeable to me. Pingnova (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hmong American people from Minneapolis–Saint Paul

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:EGRS non-defining intersection of ethnicity, nationality, occupation, and populated place. SMasonGarrison 00:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EGRS/I: "the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" Hmong people in Minneapolis-St. Paul is a significantly documented topic in reliable literature since the 1980s. There exists a Wikipedia page on it: History of the Hmong in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. (Additionally to navigate this topic I created a navbox: Template:Hmong topics in Minnesota.) The Minneapolis-St. Paul metro is one of the two core groupings of Hmong diaspora outside Asia. Additionally their identity as Hmong Americans, the combination of ethnicity and nationality, is significant and explored in a lot of literature, some of the more significant available as references on the wiki page. The politicians especially in the metro are notable as a group because that is where Hmong people first gained political prominence worldwide and continue to see a lot of success. If there's any specific concern about the adherence of these categories to EGRS, please let me know so I can track down sources. These topic intersections are well documented but have little coverage on Wikipedia, which I have been trying to remedy such as with the upcoming edit-a-thon mentioned in my last comment. Pingnova (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Housing rights activists from Indianapolis

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. This category only has one person in it, and I suspect that there's not enough people to populate it. (I tried) SMasonGarrison 00:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_1&oldid=1284711529"