WP:CFD/T

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

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

How to use this page

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

Special notes

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

Discussion for Today

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_November_25

November 25

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:People associated with the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales

Propose deleting Category:People associated with the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've populated it to seven articles, and I'm pretty sure most of them meet WP:CATDEF. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2026 anime television series debuts

Propose deleting Category:2026 anime television series debuts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON category for one television series on a future characteristic that has been predicted but not yet confirmed. As always, just because a television series is planned to premiere on a future date doesn't always mean that date is written in stone -- any number of things can happen to mess with the predicted premiere date, so that this could be finished faster than planned and thus actually premiere in 2025, slower than planned and thus not actually premiere until 2027 or 2028, or collapse entirely and thus never make it to air at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the late fall of 2025, when we have locked-in 2026 premieres to file in it, but it isn't already needed in 2024 for just one series that's still in the pipeline as of right now, especially when it's already in the appropriate Category:Upcoming anime television series as it is. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by paranormal abilities

Propose renaming Category:People by paranormal abilities to Category:People by purported paranormal ability

Nominator's rationale: The current title of this category suggests the abilities are real. Given that these abilities have never been scientifically proven, it should specify they are alleged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's better but the problem with both the above categories is that they appear to be intended to refer to claimants only but are not descriptive enough and could also include Category:Paranormal investigators and Category:People associated with the paranormal. What about Category:People claiming paranormal ability or Category:Paranormal ability claimants? 5Q5|^✉ 13:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with those too... anything besides the current one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While it is, indeed, not scientifically proven, it doesn't change the fact that "purported" is POV language, just in the other way. The simplest name is the one it's at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Bushranger's point?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The people claiming paranormal abilities have the burden to prove they possess them in a scientific lab setting. If they cannot, then I don't believe saying "purported" or "claimed" is POV. If there was even a smidgen of scientific confirmation, then perhaps it would be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomatic missions in Oman

Propose merging Category:Diplomatic missions in Oman to Category:Foreign relations of Oman

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a list article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge for now – since none of the listed missions have their own articles, this category is unnecessary. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Assamese-language films with Assamese connection

Propose renaming Category:Non-Assamese-language films with Assamese connection to Category:Assam in non-Assamese culture

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Japan in non-Japanese culture. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Currencies of the Commonwealth of Nations

Propose deleting Category:Currencies of the Commonwealth of Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. The Commonwealth has no trade or economic policy role and its member states often have very little in common economically. Grouping together 95 currencies on the basis of current or former membership of the Commonwealth makes no sense. No equivalent category exists for other international organisations, including those with significant economic and trade roles. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roc (mythology)

Propose deleting Category:Roc (mythology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category that is, essentially, "performers by peformance" - it's "works that have featured a Roc" and "things named after the Roc", with a smattering of other roc-like mythological birds and one extinct bird that *might* have been the source of the Roc legend. Regardless, this is a pretty tenuously connected group of articles that is, I believe, WP:OC. The main article is already categorised in this category's parent cats. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mythological characters and concepts are not "performers", nor covered by a terminology intended to cover actors. Dimadick (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a CfD phraseology, not an explicit description of the contents. Football stadiums also aren't "performers", but that description has been used in CfDs for deleting "stadiums that hosted event X" categories, for instance. And it doesn't change the fact that this is WP:OC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear inclusion criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional males by franchise

Propose deleting Category:Fictional males by franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Fictional females by franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Few to none of the things in here qualify as a franchise, making this category misleading. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there may be a slight imprecision, but these categories work fine. – Fayenatic London 09:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a "slight" imprecision, as almost none are a franchise (besides maybe Bond girls). Most refer to a company instead or are unfitting to belong in the category. I will say that some, like the comics ones, might have to be merged into Category:Fictional females. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These seem to be subdivisions by publishing company instead of media franchise. Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional males and Category:Fictional females, some subcategories are by company, but it is a hodgepodge altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not kept, merge? Dimadick seems to imply a rename? Still no consensus to change anything... thoughts and further comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If renamed, then purge the subcategories that are not by company. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Travelers

Propose merging Category:Travelers to Category:People by behavior
Propose merging Category:Female travelers to Category:Women by behavior
Propose merging Category:Fictional travelers to Category:Fictional characters by behavior

Nominator's rationale: It is tough to understand how this could possibly be defining. Most everyone is a traveler at some point, so it's simply too vague to function as a category. Furthermore, many of the categories herein make no sense. Migrants and stowaways are not necessarily travelers by nature, but are taking a potentially one-time journey. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a bit of an error in nominating; I meant to suggest merging the first two to Category:People by behavior and Category:Women by behavior respectively rather than deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Most everyone is a traveler at some point" But everyone is not known for these travels, nor everyone leaves a mark in travel literature. As always, categories are for those largely defined by the these activities. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not obvious a category is defining, and it is not here, then it is a non-defining category. "Category:People by form of notable travel" would be a more defining and correct title for this particular category, but clunky and IMO, somewhat arbitrary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize Category:Travelers and Category:Female travelers, the subcategories are related somehow, but there shouldn't be any articles directly in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional travelers, neutral on the rest - A character can be defined by the fact that they travel for lengthy periods of time, not sure about real people. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, the whole storyline may be about someone's travel. In real life that doesn't really apply though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crypt of the NecroDancer

Propose merging Category:Crypt of the NecroDancer to Category:Rhythm-action games

Nominator's rationale: same kind of situation with the Coffee Talk category. Just one main game and the spin off based on The Legend of Zelda. This category also contains 3 non-free files related to both games, but they're just files and don't think that qualifies as enough to keep the category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, the two articles are already directly interlinked. But presumably merge to parent Category:Rhythm-action games. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Too few articles fit into this category making it an undue category by itself.--23mason (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking Age slave trade

Propose renaming Category:Viking Age slave trade to Category:Medieval European slave trade

Nominator's rationale: rename to something more general, it was a trade chain from eastern Europe to among others Al-Andalus, the Vikings had something to do with it, but did not dominate the whole chain. The issue is not that Vikings were around in this period, the issue is that most Slavs weren't Christianized yet and hence were accepted as subjects of slave trade. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There seem to be a misunderstanding here. This category is meant to be used for the slave trade which was managed by the vikings specifically, not just slave trade taking place in Europe during the middle ages. That would be too wide an issue: there is also for example the Prague slave trade, the Venetian slave trade, etc.

The vikings did not dominate the trade in slaves from Western Europe to al-Andalus. They did participate in it, certainly, but they did not dominate it.

They did, however, certainly dominate the trade in slaves from Europe to the Middle East via Eastern Europe/"Russia". The slave trade played a major part for viking economy, and the vikings played a major part as a supplyer for the trade in European slaves to the Abbasid Caliphate via Russia.

The category is meant to be used only for the slave trade of the vikings. It could be a subcategory of a future middle ages slave trade of course. --Aciram (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not just the element of supply, there is also a further chain and a demand side. Via Prague the slaves went to al-Andalus and via Bukhara there were various other sources of slave supply than Vikings too. Attributing everything to the Vikings skews the facts. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian-century Fooian male/women classical pianists

Propose merging Category:20th-century French male classical pianists to Category:French male classical pianists and Category:20th-century French classical pianists and Category:20th-century French male pianists
Propose merging Category:21st-century French women classical pianists to Category:French women classical pianists and Category:21st-century French classical pianists and Category:21st-century French women pianists
Propose merging Category:21st-century French male classical pianists to Category:French male classical pianists and Category:21st-century French classical pianists and Category:21st-century French male pianists
Propose merging Category:21st-century British women classical pianists to Category:British women classical pianists and Category:21st-century British classical pianists and Category:21st-century British women pianists
Propose merging Category:20th-century German male classical pianists to Category:German male classical pianists and Category:20th-century German classical pianists and Category:20th-century German male pianists
Propose merging Category:21st-century German male classical pianists to Category:German male classical pianists and Category:21st-century German male pianists

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse at the 5-way intersection of nationality, gender, century, instrument, and genre, especially since there isn't a FOOian-century male classical pianists or FOOian-century women classical pianists parent. ^SMason_Garrison 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think that the last category should also be merged to Category:21st-century German classical pianists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My apologies for missing some.^SMason_Garrison 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even though these are 5-way intersections, 151 members means that Category:20th-century French male classical pianists is not a narrow intersection. I think this nomination needs to be expanded with the French & British C18 and C19 siblings, and those missing from C20 i.e. Category:20th-century French women classical pianists and Category:20th-century British women classical pianists. The C18 ones within Category:18th-century classical pianists are certainly WP:OCNARROW, so perhaps only those should be merged. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Marcocapelle: Thoughts? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I get FL's point about size, but I'd still suggest considering non-classical parent category, such as Category:20th-century French male pianists, which only has 25 people in it, so not much information is really lost in that direction. ^SMason_Garrison 23:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means expand the nomination with sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The parent category FOOian-century women classical pianists should be created instead. Dimadick (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Dimadick's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evil child films

Propose renaming Category:Evil child films to Category:Films about evil children

Nominator's rationale: As per precedent set on multiple occasions, rename category to make it more clear that this category is intended only for films in which evil children are a primary aspect, not an incidental one. DonIago (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is why we'd even have this category in the first place. What's next? Films about evil middle aged people? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drown Soda (talk · contribs) only created the category today; perhaps they will stop by and weigh in on their motives? DonIago (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that we already have an existing category for films about juvenile delinquency here, but the "evil child" film is an established sub-genre of horror cinema, of which we have MANY other existing categories (i.e. slasher films, zombie films, serial killer films, haunted house films, etc.) There also happen to be a significant number of films that fall under this genre, which is why I thought it may be useful for categorical sorting purposes. And to be frank, I have no response to NinjaRobotPirate's slippery slope input here. Drown Soda (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to weigh in on the merits of the existence of the category at this time, but I think one thing that might favor it being deleted, if editors want to go in that direction, is that there doesn't appear to be an article about evil child films, or if there is, the category makes no reference to it. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a specific subgenre of horror films then better include that in the category name, e.g. Category:Evil child horror films and include this in the tree of Category:Horror films. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Horror films with child villains. "Evil" is purely subjective in nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be "Horror films about child villains", or does "with" suffice? Sorry to be picky. DonIago (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Donlago's comment? (Regarding "about" vs. "with".)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demon superheroes

Propose merging Category:Demon superheroes to Category:Fictional demons
Propose merging Category:Demon supervillains to Category:Fictional demons

Nominator's rationale: The combination of demon and superhero does not appear to be defining, at least without evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as these seem to be useful divisions of Category:Superheroes by type / Category:Supervillains by type. – Fayenatic London 09:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not require "evidence" for category subdivisions. This is not a police investigation. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CATDEF states that reliable sources must "commonly and consistently refer to [the defining characteristic] in describing the topic", so it absolutely needs some sort of proof that RS single out demonic superheroes and villains as a class of their own. A pithy comment like calling it an investigation doesn't suddenly make it follow the Wikipedia policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Zxcvbnm's latest comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm, and it is also entirely obvious that demons have superpowers. But merge manually because most articles will already be in some other subcategory of Category:Fictional demons. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]