WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_October_16

October 16

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:History of Yugoslavia

Propose merging Category:History of Yugoslavia to Category:Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: Because Yugoslavia is a historical topic as such, this title is redundant, all this should simply be upmerged into the parent category, there's no apparent benefit in having the readers do an extra click. Joy (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: if there's actual historiography topics that should be categorized, we should make a Category:Historiography of Yugoslavia for that. --Joy (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The "History of Yugoslavia" category is one of about 20 country categories in Category:History of Europe by former country and there are more “Histories of former countries in the “other continent” countries. Hence it should not be deleted or upmerged. Hugo999 (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles on pre-1900 earthquakes

Propose deleting Category:Articles on pre-1900 earthquakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer used in Template:Infobox earthquake and was added in 2018 at Talk:List_of_historical_earthquakes#Proposal_to_redefine_as_"before_1900"_(not_1901) and was removed from the template in 2019. See more discussion. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is still an article AD 17 Lydia earthquake in the category, how did that happen? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's supposed to be a tracking category but hasn't been tracked by anything since 2019. The only member AD 17 Lydia earthquake was added manually with [[Category:Articles on pre-1900 earthquakes]]. The article is already in the non-tracking Category:1st-millennium earthquakes where it belongs. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines

Propose deleting Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NEOLOGISM, Second Ladies are not a thing in Philippine politics. We are not like the United States which uses such term. Second Ladies/Gentlemen at best are just a synonym for the Vice President's spouse, unlike the First Lady/Gentlemen who actually serves a role for being the host at the Malacanang Palace and is distinct from the Spouse of the President of the Philippines Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this category has been emptied by the nominator, Hariboneagle927. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For full disclosure, there were four entries under it Mans Carpio, Elenita Binay, Celia Díaz Laurel, and Loi Ejercito Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is spouses of the vice president, that's a defining feature regardless of whether the role is official. Please don't remove pages from categories like this. I've reverted you removals. Mason (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is plain neologism. You would be hard pressed to see consistent/sustained usage of the term "Second Lady/Gentleman" by Philippine national broadsheets or government agencies. First Lady and Gentlemen are likewise not a formalized institution but unlike Second Lady, the term (Second Lady) is not used by the media or the government.

The argument is "Second Ladies" as a role does not exist in the Philippine context. Sure the category could be renamed as Category:Spouses of vice presidents of the Philippines to accurately portray its member pages. We do not created fictitious roles and present it as fact, regardless if official or not. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To re-emphasis the role of First Lady and Second Lady is distinct from the President's and the Vice president spouses. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local circumstances, both with respect to the question whether it is a defining characteristic, as well as with respect to the name of the category, should play an important role in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four entries are notable for being elected politicians, one is a theater actress and Mans Carpio is noted for being involved in a smuggling scandal and his membership in the wider Duterte family who had Rodrigo Duterte, his father-in-law. None of the given citation asserts they held the role of "second lady/gentleman". Again we are talking about the fictitious role. I understand in some context such as the US context its synonymous to the vice president's spouse.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know anything about Philippine politics myself but I think your arguments are good and this should only be opposed if spouse of vice president is a defining characteristic in the Philippines after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early abbots by century

Propose deleting Category:5th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:6th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:7th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:8th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:9th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:10th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:11th-century abbots
Propose deleting Category:12th-century abbots

Nominator's rationale: the earliest non-Christian (Buddhist) abbot that we have an article about is Yishan Yining who lived in the 13th century. These categories don't contribute to navigation until we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. All Irish abbots of this period were Christian abbots and can be added as subcategories thereof. It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian". Wikipedia should reflect the real world and not get stuck too much in its internal organization. The real world is that there weren't Buddhist abbots in medieval Ireland, they were all Christian. This nomination is of course without objection to recreation once we have articles about earlier Buddhist abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. > It would be naieve to state that these Irish abbots do not belong in Christian abbots just because the Irish category name does not specify "Christian".

I never said that the individuals in the page don't belong in the Christian abbots category. I said that you shouldn't be conflating nationality and religion at the category level. Three things: I don't see why you're suggesting deletion, instead of merging. This deletion is going to break the abbot by nationality template. This seems premature, given that I asked you about this on your talk page. Mason (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw and Fayenatic london: what do you think of this? Better to have third-party input here. The discussion is in the first place about whether (medieval) Irish abbots should be a subcategory or a sibling of Christian abbots. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, why would you delete these categories rather than upmerging them to Category:Medieval abbots? NLeeuw (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since these have subcats for both Irish and Christian abbots by century, and are part of e.g. 12th-century religious leaders and 12th-century monks, it seems to me best to keep the hierarchy intact. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Marco's point is that everyone in the Irish abbot tree is also a Christian abbot. I'd already tried to discuss this issue, but they're intentionally ignoring me. Mason (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, as suggested by NL?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Byzantine abbots there isn't anything specifically medieval about abbots. Should we then also create a separate category for medieval Christian abbots, and for medieval Irish abbots? I don't think so, the century categories seem to suffice. Having said that, I have not nominated Category:Medieval abbots and it's probably too late to add this now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Society of Ukrainian Progressors members

Propose deleting Category:Society of Ukrainian Progressors members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Emptied: no refs. No such society. Mistranslation? --Altenmann >talk 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an empty category, it doesn't need a discussion. Next time, consider tagging it CSD C1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, consider not emptying the category beforehand. Discussion can be useful when you know which articles were in there. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann, I'm going to say it more bluntly. Please don't empty categories like this. We can't tell if there's a mistranslation or if the category has sources in another language, if we don't know who was in it. Mason (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the comments of Marcocapelle and Mason. For the record, the six biographies removed out-of-process by Altenmann are here: [1]. ~~Maybe the last word should be "progressionists" like [2].~~ – Fayenatic London 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this "out-of-process" nonsense? The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources. Aren't we forgetting our most fundamental rule? --Altenmann >talk 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You really need to consider the feedback you're getting here. "The removed categories in bios were not supported by sources." That's the problem. You removed them so how do you expect the CFD to go? I've rolled back the removal so other people can actually evaluate the category contents. Mason (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "how do you expect the CFD to go?" - easily. Check in Wikipedia or in the internets whether such society exists or existed. --Altenmann >talk 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Your reversal is a blatant violation of Wikipedia rules: WP:AGF and WP:V unreferenced information can be deleted at any time. Here are the bios in question, if someone questions my senses:

13:16 Smasongarrison talk contribs (Dmytro Doroshenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist

      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykhailo Hrushevsky added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Mykola Vasylenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Symon Petliura added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Serhiy Yefremov added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist
      		13:16  Smasongarrison talk contribs (Volodymyr Vynnychenko added to category, this page is included within other pages) diffhist

- Meanwhile I am restoring my deletions done in total agreement with Wikipedia rules. --Altenmann >talk 20:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand why you even brought this up for CFD if you are just going to make it difficult for wikipedians to temporarily evaluate the category. I've reverted the change and ask that you be patient. You're the one who made the nomination. Mason (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last word should be "Progressives", see User_talk:Aleksandr_Grigoryev#Category:Society_of_Ukrainian_Progressors_members. But in the same discussion, the category's creator accepts deletion. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful to know. From that conversation it seems like merge to Category:Ukrainian_Democratic_Party_(1904)_politicians is a viable solution. Mason (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No; these are not the same establishments. YOu cannot categorize unless the articles say so that they are, i.e., you cannot do an automatic merge. --Altenmann >talk 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the premature emptying issue is resolved, do people support a merge to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians (as suggested by Mason)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me whether these two organizations were interconnected or synonomous. By all means add articles to Category:Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904) politicians insofar they mention membership of that party. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]