Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 18



Category:Potentially illegible userboxes

 * 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. MER-C 08:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Potentially illegible userboxes to Category:Userboxes with insufficient color contrast
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Manual of Style/Accessibility
 * Module:Userbox

This tracking category has over 20,000 pages in it. Why? Well it includes (1) sandboxes, (2) doc subpages, and (3) user subpages that transclude userboxes (some editors prefer to maintain pages like User:MJL/Userbox/all which transclude onto their userpage).

So besides renaming I also propose that a person with experience in module tracking categories also exclude these use cases (in some form or fashion). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support rename, proposed name explains better what the purpose is. Also I concur with nominator hoping that someone will be able to remove all use cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support rename per nom. As for the use cases, excluding  and   should be fairly straight forward, but ensuring that userboxes that are located in userspace are still included while excluding transclusions of userboxes into userspace would be trickier. Let me take a look --DannyS712 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.

Office television series

 * 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. MER-C 16:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Office television series to Category:Workplace television series
 * Propose merging Category:American office television series to Category:American workplace television series
 * Propose merging Category:British office television series to Category:British workplace television series
 * Nominator's rationale: As with Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5, the issue is that the genre distinction between "office" television series and "workplace" television series isn't clearcut enough to require two separate category schemes for them. Although it is technically true that there are also some workplace comedy series that are not set in offices, there's not actually a clear-cut distinction — the terms "office" and "workplace" are used quite interchangeably for the shows set in offices, the "non-office workplace" shows that are set in grocery stores or radio stations or government departments still operate within the same "motley crew of idiots and goofballs who have to find a way to like working together even if they have nothing in common" comedic lineage as the office shows rather than constituting their own distinct genre of programming, and just seven shows total have been categorized here of which two are versions of The Office itself and a third is another shortlived show that was also called The Office. Separate categories are simply not needed here. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Skye
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 11%23Category:Skye

Category:American photographers by subject
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 13%23Category:American photographers by subject

Category:20th-century Soviet sculptors

 * 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) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 20th-century soviet sculptors


 * Nominator's rationale:, is this category really useful for everyone? There are no 19th-/21st-century Soviet sculptors. Also, it confuses people, because every article in Category:Soviet sculptors can be placed in this category. In short, it's kind of a redundant duplicate. Russian Rocky (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I concur with your analysis - this serves no purpose. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just put Category:Soviet sculptors directly in Category:20th-century sculptors - which I am guessing may be why this Category was created. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no objections. Thank you for pinging me.--Mainly 14:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Monégasque people of Lorrainian descent

 * 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. MER-C 16:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting monégasque people of lorrainian descent


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a bizarre descent category: just because one distant ancestor, princess consort Marie of Lorraine, was of the House of Lorraine, a number of subsequent princes of Monaco have been put in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This is a bizarre case of overcategorisation, as it refers to the House of Lorraine, not the Duchy of Lorraine. Lorraine was a German Duchy that has subsequently been amalgamated into France, but the House of Lorraine were actually of Armagnac descent, Armagnac being an area of Gascony.  Such descent categories are not particularly useful for royal and princely families, due to the tendency to marry foreign royalty, so that almost any royal is likely to be entitled to descent categories for almost every country in Europe.  We might substitute "members of the Princely family of Monaco", but we have Category:House of Grimaldi, which amounts to the same thing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Middle-earth horses

 * 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. In terms of the discussion, this would pretty much be no consensus.  However, in terms of policy-based rationales, I'm not seeing any policy being cited by the delete side.  In particular, I'm not seeing any policy or guideline that proscribes categories of redirects.  Several participants have cited WP:LISTRCAT which supports categories of redirects to a list and where this category is named as an example.  The section has been there, along with the examples, since August 2007, and predates the previous CfD.  Since we are meant to give greater weight to policy-based rationales, that makes it a slam-dunk for keep in the absence of any counter-policy.  It seems obvious to me that a discussion of the LISTCRAT guideline would be required before this could be nominated again.  Indeed, that should have happened before either of the CfDs for this page. SpinningSpark 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting middle-earth horses


 * Nominator's rationale: No articles. These are all redirects to a sections on a single article. -- wooden  superman  13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is good practice for the nominator to link to previous cfds, such as this one. This is in fact a perfect example of how to categorise useful redirects: see Categorizing_redirects where it is cited as an example. Oculi (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I can see how it might be useful if it was redirecting to multiple articles, but not when all of the redirects are to the same article. The sections List of Middle-earth animals and List of Middle-earth animals are really not that difficult to navigate without this excessive categorization.  -- wooden  superman  15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the excess? Arod (Middle-earth) is categorized once, hardly excessive. Have you read Categorizing_redirects? Oculi (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's excessive because it isn't needed to negotiate these relatively small sections of a list. Yes, I've read it, but that doesn't change my opinion on the redundancy of this category.  -- wooden  superman  16:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an extra signpost. Extra signposts are a help, not an inconvenience. Delete would make Arod (Middle-earth) uncategorised, which is highly undesirable Oculi (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Arod is barely even notable and probably WP:FANCRUFT, but if it really must be categorized, and I'm not convinced of this, then it could go in and, but it really isn't necessary.  -- wooden  superman  16:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, the purpose of categories is to link to other articles that are related to the article that you're currently reading. Being linked to the same article again and again is completely uninformative. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - (article) categories should be (just) linking to similar articles. Listify if nececessary. DexDor(talk) 21:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the list in question has changed somewhat since this category was set up nearly 12 years ago (see here for the original version that was later merged to a list of Middle-earth animals). Some of the list entries have been removed so some of the redirects no longer function as such - this can tend to happen over time with lists on fictional entities. On a general point, editors will have been following the consensus established at the categorizing redirects guideline:"'...categorization of the redirects can be an alternative way of browsing entries in a long list. It can also provide an alphabetical listing for lists that are not organised alphabetically, for example, lists organised in a chronological order. Redirects to sections of minor character lists should generally only be categorized within that fictional setting, and not in the wider fictional categories.'" If the consensus here is to delete, then a discussion should also take place at the guideline talk page to update the guideline, as editors who watch that guideline page may not be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the guideline may need amending. That guideline (like many others) is not 100% clear about how much it is describing Mediawiki functionality and how much it is telling users what is good practice. "If you do X then the effect on the encyclopedia will be Y" doesn't necessarily mean that doing X is appropriate (in a particular situation). DexDor(talk) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Oculi and the cited guideline. Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Hide if Kept I'm struggling to see the navigational pathway that's helpful here. I come to Category:Middle-earth animals where the main article is List of Middle-earth animals but there's a subcategory for horses that only points to that same main article. (No objection to a hidden redirect category if anyone finds that useful.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @RevelationDirect, this isn't a navigational pathway. It's a misnamed instance of a very common type of tracking category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't see the point of this cat, given they're all listed on List of Middle-earth animals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, but as a hidden tracking category per e.g. Category:EastEnders character redirects to lists (and many similar subcats of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists)
 * A category consisting solely of redirects is useless to navigation. However, it is very beneficial to editors to keep track of these redirects, and making it it a hidden tracking category ensures that readers don't get sucked into it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that categories like this are "very beneficial to editors"? We have categories such as Category:Redirect-Class EastEnders articles for editors and I'm not convinced that it's worth (the editor time) maintaining both mainspace and talkpage categories that are largely duplication. DexDor(talk) 13:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have an entire tree of redirect categories: see Category:Wikipedia redirects and Category:All redirect categories. If you feel this strongly that categories of this sort aren't worth the effort (as opposed to consider this one particular category a bad idea), please try to have the whole tree abolished instead of getting rid of one category.  Nyttend backup (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This CFD is about this category. If the CFD results in delete then maybe it should be followed by a larger CFD. That's a common way of proceeding (except where it would only be appropriate to consider a group of categories together). Many of the redirect categories are for things like mis-spellings rather than for specific subjects. DexDor(talk) 06:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Middle-earth animals. There is not enough substantive content to merit a full category.  No objection to moving redirects to Category:Middle-earth animal redirects as a hidden category (which would perhaps be done by renaming.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename and expand scope. There's no reason, as far as I can see, to have a category just for equines.  I can see the point of a category for ME animal redirects, but why split out the equines?  Rename to Category:Middle-earth animal redirects and move appropriate items in Category:Middle-earth animals here.  Nyttend backup (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The redirects should use Template:R from fictional character and be categorized like all other fictional characters are. --Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per npm, or upmerge. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Per Oculi and the cited guideline. Would also add that these sort of categories greatly help editors trying to improve interlanguage coverage. Additionally these sorts of categories allows for adding definitions via Wikidata to imply types and properties in a structured way beyond simply listing items under the "Notable horses" subsection. ElanHR (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ElanHR, can you provide a bit more detail about how these categories help editors? DexDor(talk) 06:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * presumably it helps by having an English page to link to at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9096008 . – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Its usefulness has been outlived. Monthly average traffic for this page was 44 views per month before it was nominated for deletion.   Orstio (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The rationale immediately above would delete . which gets 26 per month. Oculi (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Create a "List of LOTR horses. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There was one at List of Middle-earth horses, but it was merged to the current list of animals. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanx, it was just an idea. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This category and others like it are useful per all the "keep" rationales above and per the fact that this category is an example used in the editing guideline. There is no scenario in which this category and others like it should be deleted. It's usefulness is explained very well in the guideline!  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  16:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a helpful and worthwhile part of Category:Fictional horses. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a category of only redirects is not useful to navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * of course it aids navigation! In this case they are links to descriptions of the fictional horses in a list. How is that not useful to navigation?  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 09:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * categorisation of redirects is permitted by the Wikipedia guideline Categorizing_redirects – because it aids navigation. When entering comments that contradict a guideline, you might at least acknowledge that you disagree with the guideline on that matter. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to admire his edits since 2006 as I do admire yours. John seems to be a bit more old-school than some in regard to his attitude toward rcatting. Some don't realize that nearly all redirect categories are maintenance categories used by the project for tracking and stuff, and not a part of the encyclopedia. That's why some editors above would prefer this to be a maintenance sorting. If that's the outcome, it would seem to be okay.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 14:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While the benefit here is small; I see no harm in keeping this category. Several plausible but uncommon uses of the category has been suggested and no good reasons to delete other than it's not useful for navigation which isn't true just that the benefit is small. Any category clutter concern is non-exsistant since readers don't visit redirects. --Trialpears (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no content here and it's not like there is a large scheme of Category:Horses by fictional universe to maintain. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems doesn't matter with more than 200 entries when subcategory counts are included?  P. I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there 21:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful tracking category that meets the WP:Categorizing redirects guideline. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.