Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 16



Category:BBC Three Counties Radio

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging bbc three counties radio, bbc radio derby and bbc radio newcastle into bbc local radio


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with little chance of expansion. Put the main articles in parent Category:BBC Local Radio and delete. Raymie (t • c) 22:50, 16 September 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:Roman courtesans

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Roman courtesans to Category:Ancient Roman courtesans
 * Nominator's rationale: I create this category a while ago, but I feel like "Roman courtesans" could also apply to courtesans from the city of Rome. ★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename, aligning with parent Category:Ancient Roman women. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 16 September 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:Childrens Commissioners in Wales

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Either move Category:Childrens Commissioners in Wales to Category:Children's Commissioners for Wales (deleting the version of the latter category I just created with exactly the same content as the former, in order to retain the history); or just delete the former category. (The former category is fairly new, and I've already recategorised its only member.) For motivations, see User talk:Llemiles JoergenB (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy move - this should have been sent to speedy as WP:C2D (article is Children's Commissioner for Wales). Oculi (talk) 18:58, 16 September 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:Television series by network

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Television series by network to Category:Original programming by television network or channel
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is a parent category of (mostly) network or channel country categories that have sub-categories which are original programming. The reason for some using network and some using channels in the country category names is based on what type is used in each country. Adding "channel" to the title will make it less confusing finding non-network categories in it. I'll note that while Category:Television networks is called that, it also has Category:Television channels and networks by content‎ and Category:Television network and channel navigational boxes‎.


 * If this CfD passes, then the next step would be to change the country categories to use "original programming" as well so the tree would be - Category:Original programming -> Category:Original programming by network or channel -> (new country name) -> original programming (Category:ABC Family original programming) Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 16 September 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:Wikipedia:Wikipediholism

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Wikipediholism to Category:Wikipediholism
 * Nominator's rationale: Broken category title. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:14, 16 September 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.

Years and decades in Ceuta and Melilla

 * 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/delete Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging:
 * Category:2020 in Melilla to Category:21st century in Melilla and Category:2020 in Spain
 * Category:2020 in Ceuta to Category:21st century in Ceuta and Category:2020 in Spain
 * Propose deleting:
 * Category:2020s in Melilla
 * Category:Decades in Melilla
 * Category:Years in Melilla
 * Category:Years of the 21st century in Melilla
 * Category:2020s in Ceuta
 * Category:Decades in Ceuta
 * Category:Years in Ceuta
 * Category:Years of the 21st century in Ceuta
 * Nominator's rationale: Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish exclaves in North Africa. These ten categories contain between them a total of just two articles:COVID-19 pandemic in Ceuta and COVID-19 pandemic in Melilla ... so this nomination removes the by-year and by-decade categories, leaving just the centuries.
 * I presume that the categories were created (by @Chongkian) in good faith to contain those two COVID-19 articles, but we don't have enough coverage of Ceuta and Melilla to populate by-decade categories, let alone by-year.
 * I did a quick Petscan check for the intersection between Category:21st century in Spain and each of Category:Ceuta and Category:Melilla, excluding people-from-the-place because we don't categorise biographies in geographic year or decade categories
 * Ceuta : 9 articles
 * Melilla: 3 articles
 * Those sets are too small to divide into decades let alone years, because most of the articles are establishments/disestablishments, which we don't categorise directly in year or decade categories. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete per nom. I have added one article to Category:21st century in Melilla. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete per nom. I took the liberty to change a target because of what looked like a typo, please correct me if I assumed wrongly. Place Clichy (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Place Clichy. Your fix is good. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete per nom, with no prejudice against later re-creation if they become viable. Grutness... wha?   01:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Far too little contnet for a complete tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 21 September 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:Animated Flash (comics) films

 * 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, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Animated Flash (comics) films to Category:Flash (comics) animated films
 * Propose renaming Category:Animated Batman films to Category:Batman animated films
 * Propose renaming Category:Animated Justice League films to Category:Justice League animated films
 * Propose renaming Category:Animated Superman films to Category:Superman animated films
 * Nominator's rationale: The type of film is "animated film". Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It reads incredibly awkward that way. And I'd say the fact that they're "Batman films" is more defining.★Trekker (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it more "incredibly awkward" than the current way we name categories? What is the difference between "Batman music", "Batman novels" or "Batman graphic novels" and this? Why do we use "Batman graphic novels" but not "Graphic Batman novels"? --Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said that. These films are most defined as "Batman films", "animated" is just another desription added.★Trekker (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You actually didn't answer that. You also didn't address Category:Batman graphic novels and why that isn't "Graphic Batman novels". Also, saying "animated" is just another desription added is meaningless as it's still there in the proposed title. It's just in the correct place, as the media is "Animated film". --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Trying to compare "graphic ___ novel" in this case is laughable, no one with a good grasp of English has ever uttered the words "graphic Batman novel". In the end "Animated" is just a description, "graphic novel" is an object.★Trekker (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ★Trekker is correct. Not just about "graphic novel" being a compound noun (obviously) but about adjective order. English has a hierarchy of what order adjectives should go in, based on how intrinsic the adjective is to describing the noun. For example, we say "big blue bird" because the color is more intrinsic to the nature of a bird than its size is: little blue birds become big blue birds. In this case, being a "Batman film" is more intrinsic than being an "animated film", because the producers could conceivably change their mind and produce it as live-action film instead, but they couldn't change their mind and make it a Superman film instead... it would be an entirely different thing if they did. So for that reason, "Batman" should be closer to "film" than "animated" is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose weird word order. in this case Batman Films is the core phrase. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as contrary to natural word order in English. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:19, 25 October 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:Pride parades in Poland

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pride parades in Poland to Category:Equality marches in Poland
 * Nominator's rationale: rename per article name Equality marches in Poland. This was opposed for speedy renaming as a conflict between WP:C2D and WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Pride parades in Poland to Category:Equality marches in Poland – C2D: See equality marches in Poland, in Poland these events are called "equality marches" in order to emphasize that the organizers want equal rights. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Alignment with the rest of the category tree (and common usage) should override consistency with the article name in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The equality marches in Poland are not commonly called "pride parades", even in English language sources. That is simply incorrect. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Black Falcon, I agree with @buidhe: this category should use the actual name used in Poland. So it's a valid C2D nomination, with a valid valid C2C-based objection. This needs a full discussion. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose. I like consistency in category names and the term "pride parades in Poland" is used in some sources:, , . In fact it is much more popular, see Talk:Equality_marches_in_Poland where I just made a comment. The solution is not to rename this category, but to rename that article to be consistent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Discussion at article talk page, and the main article itself, seem to clearly indicate that these marches are so called in Poland. I also expect to see other local variations elsewhere. This is a case where precision should be preferred to consistency. Place Clichy (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename With Redirect I'm going with WP:C2D. Since, in a Polish context, their word for Equality is used over Pride, just like I would with WP:ENGVAR. A redirect for Hotcat users would be helpful though. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:11, 1 November 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:Gender-critical Wikipedians

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting gender-critical wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Gender-critical feminists are criticized for being transphobic due to its close association with "womyn-born-womyn" philosophy. As someone who isn't likely to be traumatized by the discussion, I've decided to nominate the category for deletion myself.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I first found out about the category and associated userbox from a discussion on the discord server. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, it's like having a WP:ATTACKNAME username: you're telling other Wikipedians that they aren't feminine or aren't masculine, that you're criticizing their self-identified gender. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 01:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I am not telling anyone that they are not masculine or feminine, nor is that the intent of the category. The category is intended to identify those who believe that gender is a social construct that should not exist. As far as I know, we are allowed to critique (in a civil manner) social constructs. Yilangren (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like an extremely poor choice of terminology then, given the cited definition of the term in the article that the nominator links to. It's the only definition I've encountered.  And I've encountered lots of discussion of gender as a social construct, in college classes and online, but I've never heard that concept referred to as being "gender-critical".  I notice that it doesn't appear in the gender article, nor in the social construction of gender article. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And wait just a second, there's actually a guideline Overcategorization/User categories, one inappropriate type being "categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive", and other types may apply to this case. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 06:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Can the nominator please provide grounds for proposing the deletion of this category? Thank you. Yilangren (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per no valid criterion proposed. Just because we don't agree with something shouldn't mean we should forcefully wipe it. If an editor is personally attacking other editors with their views, this can be managed on a case by case basis. I see no reason why deleting this category would prevent any disruption, or be a benefit in any way. Ed  talk!  01:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, potential grounds for deletion are WP:USERCATYES and WP:NOTSOCIAL (3rd bullet point). Before making up my mind I would like to hear from the keep voters how they think this user category contributes to building a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this category would fall under "Dating services" in WP:NOTSOCIAL. The only potential ground for deletion that I could reasonably understand is WP:USERCATYES. However, looking at Category:Wikipedians by philosophy it would seem that most of them "advocate a position" so I'm not sure how this category is any different in that sense. Regarding WP:NPOV, if anything userboxes like this or those supporting gender would help promote neutrality when editing certain controversial articles so that each user can know the other user's perspective -- this way, more neutral and unbiased editors can help settle debates. Yilangren (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It does seem to fall under "publish your thoughts" in WP:NOTSOCIAL. Possibly more subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy need to be discussed as well, but that can be done at another occasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * + Note that with respect to "userboxes like this or those supporting gender would help promote neutrality": it is not the userbox that is nominated for deletion, just the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ++ As the discussion is becoming stale and I am not yet convinced of the keep arguments, I'm formally voting delete per WP:USERCATYES and WP:NOTSOCIAL (3rd bullet point). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment 2 I'd also like the nom to spell out the exact grounds for deletion instead of writing philosophic opinion pieces. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:USERCATNO: "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position".
 * Other categories by political position have been deleted or political ideology have been deleted. See WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/August 2007. --09:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:USERCATNO. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:57, 17 September 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:Water rides manufactured by other makers

 * 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 as hidden categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting water rides manufactured by other makers


 * Propose deleting roller coasters manufactured by other builders


 * Nominator's rationale: We have traditionally deleted "other", "miscellaneous", or "remainder" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, but convert to hidden tracking categories. These categories are populated by the roller coasters infobox, and are valuable to the editors working on those topics. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection if they are wanted as hidden administrative categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Good Ol’factory, I agree that they should not remain as content categories, for the reason you set out. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Convert to Admin Cat Per WP:OCMISC can't be a content category.RevelationDirect (talk)


 * 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.