Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 6



Category:Hearts of Beath J.F.C. players

 * 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) 08:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting hearts of beath j.f.c. players


 * Nominator's rationale: This category erroneously has the title of a contemporary children's team, rather than the historical adult team Hill of Beath F.C.. Any players eligible for inclusion would thus be non-notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To note, they have all been moved to Category:Hearts of Beath F.C. players, as that is the team they played for, not the non-notable, similarly-named children's side. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hearts of Beath J.F.C. is not a children's side - but it's easy to see why that impression came across. Amateur teams in Scotland either belong to the Scottish League or the Scottish Junior Football Association, the latter of which are called junior teams even though adults play in them. Having said that, Hearts of Beath FC and Hearts of Beath JFC are different adult sides (as, to add to the confusion, is Hearts of Beath AFC), and it seems unlikely there'd be any HoBJFC players with articles, so support, assuming all the articles are for the earlier side. Grutness... wha?   04:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I can't find a reference to what the "J" in the modern "J.F.C." side stands for but I believe it may possibly be "juvenile". I am also well aware of the distinction between adult senior and junior sides in Scotland and that the latter not only does not imply the involvement of children but actively implies an adult team. I'd be surprised to learn of any Scottish children's side which styles themselves "juniors". HoB JFC is definitely not an adult junior side of this definition; I have long since checked and can find no reference to them in the Scottish Junior Football Association leagues. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to know. Junior teams rarely, if ever, style themselves "J.F.C." to my knowledge; it is generally plain "F.C". J.F.C.'s Facebook page etc. make it clear they are solely a team for boys and girls (they are a "Community kids Football Club" for "kids born between 2002-2014"). The team is thus not notable, let alone the players. The AFC team is an adult amateur team and not a "junior" one either, as far as a similar search can tell, so also non-notable along with its playesrs.


 * The ultimate conclusion is nonetheless the same. Only the players of the historical F.C. side can form a notable category. This does not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. They're called Juniors (Here is their Facebook page) - but they do seem to be age group rather than adult. Very confusing. Grutness... wha?   03:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected regarding what the "J" stands for - because of the apparent indication that "JFC" might indicate that this modern team were an adult junior side, in the conventional Scottish sense, on creating the article for the historic Hearts of Beath last June I searched rigorously to find definitive evidence of what the "J" stood for as there was only specific reference to them being a kids team and not a word about them in the conventional-use-of-the-term SJFA leagues or listings. I do remember that there was scant information to go on then on the modern team's social media sites. I believe that the Facebook page did not then use the term "Juniors" in the banner on the site and the Twitter one still does not. Nonetheless, there is only an indication that they are a kids team and not, as one might reasonably conclude initially, an adult junior team. Either way the category is a dud. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make any real difference as far as my !vote is concerned - I supported your proposal and still do. Grutness... wha?   04:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as empty category. FYI confusingly Scottish junior teams are for adults and many are notable/have notable categories (but not this!). GiantSnowman 14:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per above in copious detail, I am absolutely fully, 100 per cent across this and in no way confused on the matter. Again, (again), this team is not a junior team. Hearts of Beath F.C. was senior, then junior at different points in their history; this modern J.F.C. "Community kids Football Club" is not the same entity. It's empty because no kid would fulfil the notability criteria. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Was Hearts of Beath F.C. a fully professional team? If not, we should not have a category for its players, even if some went on to be notable elsewhere! I note there is also a category:Hearts of Beath F.C. with nothing in it but a main articles and a players subcat: that should not exist either.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know for a fact but, even when a senior side, I can't imagine anyone was not part-time. That said, and I'm happy to be shown otherwise, per WP:FOOTY Hearts of Beath F.C. are notable and the former players listed are notable; there is nothing that proscribes a category for those notable players at that notable club on the grounds they didn't attain notability at that club. Is there such a proscription? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2020 (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:American autobiographers of Chinese 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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American autobiographers of Chinese descent to Category:American autobiographers
 * Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to . An unnecessary triple intersection. User:Namiba 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge - per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dual upmerge per nom. A non-notable triple intersection category. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2020 (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:American women memoirists

 * 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American women memoirists to Category:Women memoirists
 * Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to . This category is a triple intersection that is best avoided per WP:OCAT. User:Namiba 21:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose : The really has to be women memoirists by different nationalities and which it'll be difficult to look for a memorists. Creating women memoirsits by nationality is the best. -- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see it as a nationality subcat of the large Category:Women memoirists, which is standard. Oculi (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Oculi's argument. Dimadick (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oculi. This is indeed a standard nationality/occupation category. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2020 (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:Thiruvalla area
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 25%23Category:Thiruvalla area

Category:People from Palu, Indonesia

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Palu, Indonesia to Category:People from Palu
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D, Consistency with main article's name. OktaRama2010 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2020 (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:People from Leeds

 * 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Leeds to Category:People from the City of Leeds
 * Nominator's rationale: It is not very clear what the distinction between the two categories is supposed to be. People from Leeds‎ contains all the occupational and school subcategories. Category:People from the City of Leeds contains most of the geographical subcategories.  Some of these suburbs were not part of the city before 1974, but I think that is best dealt with by ensuring they are all included in Category:People from the West Riding of Yorkshire (before 1974).  There are two articles,  Leeds and City of Leeds but they both deal with the same geographical area.  I'm agnostic as to which category to keep, but I think having both is just a source of confusion. Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the City of Leeds (including eg Wetherby) is much larger than Leeds. Rathfelder argued remorselessly and repetitively exactly the other way round over Manchester in the recent Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_23. Oculi (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles for Leeds and City of Leeds use identical maps. I dont think there is any geographical distinction since 1974.  Manchester works differently.  Large numbers of those biographies assert the subject came from/was born in Manchester when they were actually from Wilmslow, Bolton etc.  I didnt find the same phenomenon among the Leeds biographies.  Rathfelder (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not true. In City_of_Leeds the grey shaded portion is Leeds and the numbered white bits are not in Leeds. Oculi (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The situations are quite different. Greater Manchester contains several districts other then the City of Manchester, so that Rathfelder's attitude was right.  In the case of Leeds it is the other way around: the Leeds (town) is only the largest settlement in a district that contains other villages and towns.  In this case the former metro-county was West Yorkshire, which was itself only part of the West Riding of Yorkshire.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2020 (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:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Asia
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 17%23Category:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Asia

Category:Articles containing audio clips

 * 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.– Fayenatic  L ondon 13:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting articles containing audio clips


 * Nominator's rationale: Largely unused category with no clear purpose. The only users adding to this category are User:Keiran Diksa and User:Rishav2014, who are probably the same person due to soft-block of the first username. Editing stops on first account on 2019-09-12T20:00:06 and continues on 2019-09-13T06:29:52. All additions to this category happened in August 2019—September 2019. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No consensus to use & impractical to implement. Nardog (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I am doing this correctly but this is important to say, very important. Please forgive mistakes. Why should the list be kept? We who have no problem reading and who obviously have our sight have what? 6 million articles at our finger tips? Do not those who are blind or can't read or whatever the case may be need a reference for all of the articles available to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4400:C76:9979:37EB:99AC:A7AE (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Spoken articles. Nardog (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2020 (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:Indigenous Catholic saints of the Americans

 * 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:Indigenous Roman Catholic saints of the Americas. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Catholic saints of the Americans to Category:Indigenous Catholic saints of the Americas
 * Nominator's rationale: Grammar, looks like an original typo from the CfD Elizium23 (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename - it's actually JPL's typo (last comment at cfd). Oculi (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename - obvious typo. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename Americans have no saints. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Indigenous Catholic is not a denomination; Roman Catholic is. The ethnicity of saints is immaterial to their sainthood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because it is not a denominational does not mean it is not notable, especially when there are numerous books about the subject (see 1 2) and nearly every reference in the articles talks about both religion and ethnicity. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , so you would favor a deletion of the entire tree of Category:Roman Catholic saints by nationality? Fascinating. Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "indigenous" a nationality? Do you have a reliable source for that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be a nationality. The category is obviously supposed to list Catholic saints who are indigenous to the Americas. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So the WP:POINTY comment above is just baloney. I disagree with your conjecture. This is a race/ethnicity category; people aren't "indigenous" in any sense other than being born somewhere. Some races and ethnicities are considered indigenous to various places. However, what relevance does that connote? I notice Our Lady of Guadalupe is categorized in there. While much revered in Mexico and among the Mexican diaspora, the Roman Catholic church teaches that it was Mary, Mother of God who appeared and last I checked she wasn't born in the Americas - nor was her race or ethnicity in any way related to the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas. So whatever this is intending to categorize (I perceive some racial or ethnic intent), it isn't doing a good job of it; a further reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename seems like an innocent typo. The category refers to the Americas, not Americans. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OCEGRS (unrelated intersection with ethnicity) and besides the category is an odd mix of officially recognized saints with folk religion. If kept, certainly rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Indigenous Roman Catholic saints of the Americas per parent Category:Roman Catholic saints by nationality and arguments at previous CfD. It is indeed highly unlikely that there be among indigenous Americans. Weaker support for the proposed target. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2020 (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:1949 Pacific hurricane season

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  05:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1949 Pacific hurricane season to Category:1940s Pacific hurricane seasons
 * Nominator's rationale: This is the first date that has a separate category for a single year (season), presumably because there are two pages in it. Before that date are decade categories, and the preceding one was just renamed from 1940–1948 to 1940s. It would be neater to merge this small category into 1940s. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge - it would be neater, as the target has just 3 articles. Oculi (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The proceeding one probably should be moved back but that's for another discussion. The reason there is a separate category for 1949 is because there is a parent article for this season (and all succeeding seasons) while before 1949, there is only enough information to warrant "seasonal" pages on a decade basis. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, the preceding one was moved as part of the whole set, see list and nominations. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, until and including the 1970s there is not enough content to warrant yearly categories. Not every article needs to have an eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2020 (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:WikiProject Hawaii watchlists

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:WikiProject Hawaii watchlists to Category:WikiProject Hawaii and Category:WikiProject watchlists
 * Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content to warrant a dedicated subcategory. As far as I can tell, WikiProject Hawaii maintains just one watchlist. (Category creator has been notified.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2020 (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:George Albert Smith (film pioneer)

 * 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:Screenshots of films directed by George Albert Smith to be consistent with the other category. This seems sufficiently unambiguous to me, but this close is no bar to a re-nomination to add the disambiguator to both categories if that appears necessary. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:George Albert Smith (film pioneer) to Category:George Albert Smith (film pioneer) screenshots
 * Nominator's rationale: When I first found this category, it was mixing screenshots of his films with articles about his films, which categories are not supposed to do -- but there was also already a separate, properly named, which contained some of his other films besides the ones that were filed here, so the articles that were here were moved to the other category accordingly. That said, image categories still are not crosslinked with article categories within articlespace, but are filed inside our tree for image categories -- and while we don't usually have subcategories for screenshots by particular filmmaker within the tree, the sheer number of images here suggests a valid reason to treat him as an exception to the rule (these shots, further, are all in the public domain, as they all come from films that are 110 years old or more, so deleting them on copyright grounds wouldn't be productive) -- but the category should still have a name which makes clearer that it's meant for screenshots rather than articles. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. Perhaps Category:Screenshots of films directed by George Albert Smith is slightly more precise. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The main article, George Albert Smith (film pioneer), needs to be linked from both categories. I'd support a move but ask if the name should have the disambiguator; if so Category:Films directed by George Albert Smith needs to be moved as well. Note that all of these are PD-USonly (see also Copyright law of the United Kingdom), so uploading to Commons is not an option. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 03:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bearcat There are also videos in the category, and I don't see how they would fit in a category about screenshots. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that we do not have a clear category tree for videos, I would suggest to leave that for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2020 (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:Pinball Hall of Fame: The Gottlieb Collection
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: listify. MER-C 19:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Pinball Hall of Fame: The Gottlieb Collection
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Microsoft Pinball Arcade
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT)
 * The Pinball Hall of Fame: The Gottlieb Collection and Microsoft Pinball Arcade are video games that portray classic real-world/physical pinball machines made by Gottlieb. (These are not awards or museums.) This category groups those pinball machines portrayed in those video games. Every single one of these articles is already in Category:Gottlieb pinball machines so these categories seems redundant and non-defining. The contents of the categories are already listified here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Background We deleted an almost identical category for pinball machines represented in a video game here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, textbook case of WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- Halls of Fame are essentially awards. We should only allow a category where there is an actual museum, not a virtual one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (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:Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OCASSOC)
 * Wikipedia does not have an article on the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame which appears to be an internet only affair with a simple web site located here. The three biography articles in this category all just mention this award in passing with other honors so it doesn't seem defining. I listed the current category contents here to save time if anyone wants to use that as a starting point to write a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- no physical museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (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.