Contents

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 2

July 2[edit]

Religion in China Redux[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 9#Religion in China Redux

Category:Colonial Puerto Rico[edit]

The result of the discussion was: rename HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Colonial Puerto RicotoCategory:Spanish Puerto Rico
• Propose renaming Category:People from Colonial Puerto RicotoCategory:People from Spanish Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: rename in accordance with the category description, it only refers to the Spanish colonial period, not to the American period which can (especially in the beginning) can be regarded as colonial too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (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:Hijacked journals[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:Hijacked journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF

• a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

• We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked

• if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;

• If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.

• if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.

• It doesn't fall into any of them.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:

    A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

    It goes on to say:

    • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;

    No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". They just happen to be a victim of a scam. Granted, it's nice to know, but it needs to be sourced; a list would be the best place to cite sources, which is not technically possible in a mere category membership. fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". No, but the lead could (and I would argue, should) end with "The journal was hijacked by <organization>, with a fake website at <fakeurldomain>, and the legitimate site hosted at <realurldomain>".[source]" This is absolutely critical information because otherwise someone looking for e.g. Wulfenia could well end up checking the scam version rather than the legit version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Headbomb's convincing arguments. If a journal is hijacked, that most certainly is a defining characteristic. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lean rename. Is there a better name than this? Like predatory? Mason (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hijacked means something very specific and applies to the victim of the scam. Predatory is a larger class of dubious journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hieronymus Praetorius scholars[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hieronymus Praetorius scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This cat was created with the sole purpose of being added to the categories of musicologist Jeffery T. Kite-Powell (same user created the cat & expanded the Kite-Powell article). I'm afraid that Hieronymus Praetorius is so impossibly niche that there are probably less than three "Hieronymus Praetorius scholars" in human history. Aza24 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2024 (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:Tracker musicians[edit]

The result of the discussion was: mergetoCategory:Chiptune and tracker musicians. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tracker musicianstoCategory:Chiptune musicians
  • Added on 2 July relisting:
    • Propose renaming and redirecting Category:Chiptune musicianstoCategory:Chiptune and tracker musicians

Nominator's rationale: Tracker software is commonly used to create chiptunes, such that there is a very significant overlap between the two categories. Given the mostly overlapping and duplicative nature of the categories, a merge seems warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, there is some overlap, but a tracker does not imply chiptune, and not all chiptunes made with a tracker. Also, "tracker" is strictly a type of music software, while "chiptune" is also considered a genre of music. If it makes sense to merge them into a single Category:Chiptune and tracker musicians, I'd be fine with that. Or maybe by platform, e.g. Nintendo musicians, Amiga musicians, etc. --Vossanova ^o< 01:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is preferable to the status quo, so I am fine with that too if people disagree there is an overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also tagging Chiptune musicians.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:03, 2 July 2024 (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:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attentiontoCategory:WikiProject assessment categories with incorrect names

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Some categories were added manually, while others are tagged by Template:Category class — based on the template's source code, this happens if and only if the name is incorrect.

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}{{subst:!}}{{PAGENAME:{{{class}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{class{{subst:!}}}}}}}{{subst:!}}unassessed{{subst:!}}{{subst:!}}-Class}} {{{topic}}} articles}}{{subst:!}}
   {{subst:!}}[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]]
  }}

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WP:AWBREQ to auto-tag all of the categories here that are manually added, almost all of which have only the category listing in their source code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can {{Category class}} handle pages like Category:Disambig-Class Bihar articles of Low-importance‎? It has both class and importance. Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there is an existing template that covers cateegory navigation for the quality–importance intersection. I'm also seeking to standardize category names fo this type with a recent WP:CFDS for the intersectional ones of WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention?Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
  They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
  There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MEPs from Italy 2024–2029[edit]

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:MEPs from Italy 2024–2029 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created by self in error. PatGallacher (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @PatGallacher: could you please tag the page as WP:G7?Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (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:2024 in professional wrestling in Massachusetts[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:2024 in professional wrestling in MassachusettstoCategory:2024 in professional wrestling

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. The sole article is already in Category:2024 in Boston so no further merging is needed. User:Namiba 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation and there are no sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2024 (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:Patrons of Romantic artists[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Patrons of Romantic artiststoCategory:Patrons of the arts

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. People are patrons of whatever era of artists they happen to be alive during Mason (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete after I added the article to Category:German patrons of the arts. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2024 (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:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's employers and patrons[edit]

The result of the discussion was: rename HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's employers and patronstoCategory:Patrons of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Propose renaming Category:Haydn's patronstoCategory:Patrons of Joseph Haydn

Nominator's rationale: Rename the cat to make what's happening a tad clearer. We tend to avoid possessives Mason (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support More natural, shorter, and consistent with the rest of the tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Ham II (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2024 (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:Destroyed Hindu temples[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Destroyed Hindu templestoCategory:Destroyed temples

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (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:Military history of Australia during the Korean War[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Military history of Australia during the Korean WartoCategory:Australia in the Korean War
• Propose merging Category:Military history of France during the Korean WartoCategory:France in the Korean War
• Propose merging Category:Military history of the United Kingdom during the Korean WartoCategory:United Kingdom in the Korean War

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, the parent category of each is nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Bduke (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2024 (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:National military histories by war[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:National military histories by wartoCategory:Military history by war and country

Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, agree with current name being confusing. The proposed target does not exactly describe what the category contains either. What about Category:Military history by country during wars?Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename because of the confusion, but unsure about the proposed targets. Perhaps Category:Military history by country by war? This would introduce two specific criteria, enabling inclusion of subcategories like Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II, and Category:Military history of Japan during World War II. But see additional comments below. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See also this nomination. I think that ultimately we do not need this tree at all, at most we need a Category:Military history of the United States by war. But it will take a few iterations to achieve that. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with eventually getting rid of the category, so any rename is an improvement in the meantime. Mason (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: For clarity, are you supporting a rename to Category:Military history of the United States by war?HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No that is just the ultimate goal, but we can't do it all it once. I just mean that it does not matter too much how the category is being renamed when it is ultimately going to disappear. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next steps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:Korean_War_national_military_histories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:World_War_II_national_military_histories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I've supported the proposed next steps and I agree the goal should be deletion of this category. Thanks for the ping, btw. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty pageant controversies[edit]

The result of the discussion was: purge biographies with no consensus on whether this category should continue to exist. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Beauty pageant controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category are people, not events. Describing people as "controversies" simply because they've attracted some sort of negative media attention during their career - or, in some cases, for no evident reason at all - seems inappropriate and potentially a BLP concern. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Heavily purge, there are four articles that may stay here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I favour purging, but 4 items is barely viable for a category, although there is no absolute minimum. NLeeuw (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Omphalographer that there are WP:BLP concerns here, especially as the "controversies" tend to be storms in teacups that were overblown by the tabloid press (Helen Morgan being a case in point). If we purge, I assume one of the four will be Sexualization in child beauty pageants? I think a subject like that is far too serious to be trivialised by association with a category like this; its other four categories are appropriate. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The four candidates I see are Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy, Mrs. Sri Lanka 2021 controversy, Sexualization in child beauty pageants, and Vanessa Williams and Miss America. The first two of those are perhaps "storms in teacups" themselves, but that's a matter for another discussion. Omphalographer (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to relist a further time, but my current thoughts on consensus is that everyone in this discussion agrees that BLPs should not be in the category – the real debate is whether those four pages should be in the category. That is a long way of saying: if there is no further participation in a week, I would personally close this as purge with not consensus on whether the category should exist or not..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (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:Timelines of video games[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Timelines of video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has become redundant. Judging by the titles of articles, none of them are "Timelines", except for a single article that is "Timeline of arcade video games", so if we categorized stuff correctly, we would get a category with only one article. It also overlaps almost entirely with the other category "Video game lists by genre".

The Persian and Malay versions of this category only have subcats btw, which isn't a good thing. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, per nom, but manually mergetoCategory:Video game lists. Most articles are already in e.g. Category:Video game lists by genre but not all. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already removed the only two articles like that from this category. Now it definitely is just an irrelevant overlapping category. So.... QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should have waited until the closure of the discussion. If for some reason the category is kept you will need to move the two articles back. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per QuantumFoam66. Of the articles they removed, Timeline of arcade video game history is the only one that is a timeline, and List of games using procedural generation is in Category:Video game lists by technology or feature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 3 July 2024 (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.