Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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

[edit]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

[edit]

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

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025_April_22


April 22

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Greco-Roman Trickster deities

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container of Greek and Roman tricksters with not enough contents to justify its need. Category:Trickster deities isn't otherwise subcategorised by culture. Also "trickster" in the title obviously doesn't need a capital so it should be speedy renamed if kept. Mclay1 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veteran feminists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection, without a main page. Upmerge. SMasonGarrison 12:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainers by populated place in Vermont

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistani internists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Pakistani medical doctors.

Also nominating for merging:

Category:State funerals in Vatican City

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is no difference with Category:Funerals in Vatican City. Normal funerals would take place in Italy, and none of the pope-related articles are treated as state funerals. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Anglican church stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: At world scale, the Anglican Communion comprises several Christian denominations, among others: the Category:Scottish Episcopal Church, the Category:Church of South India, etc. In particular, my nomination proposal is related to the Episcopal Church of the United States, specifically its church building-related stubs. Right now there are over 500 stubs. So, I am proposing the aforementioned renaming fron Category:United States Anglican church stubs to Category:Episcopal Church (United States) church stubs (itself a subcategory of Category:Anglican church stubs). Best, --Fadesga (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks for your suggestion. But there is yet another problem. The Anglican Church in North America (established 2009) split from the Episcopal Church of the United States (established much earlier, in 1821), so they are two separate church bodies; both are part, though, of the worldwide Anglican Communion. That is the real problem here: on the one side, a rather big denomination with over 500 stubs (all of them church buildings), and on the other side, a much smaller denomination with less than 40 stubs (of which, only 5 church stubs. Maybe this tiny church stub category should be put into yet another different category. And that is why I am asking for a category renaming. Best, --Fadesga (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two things. First, I will tag the category. Second, there seems to be consensus for a change in the category description, but what should the name of Category:United States Anglican church stubs be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcocapelle. Do not forget: the US Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, and there are some split church bodies in the US that are "Anglican" but not "Episcopal". Fadesga (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4th millennium

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination tag was removed by an IP only 4 days after nomination (9th April). Relisting since it was not tagged for full 7 days. May be closed even if no new comments are added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the most recent comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological foo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Listing per request of Jc37. No opinion on the merits; I will let them give an actual rationale. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much to HouseBlaster for helping list these nominations : ) - jc37 04:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so the goal here is to remove usage of the word "mythological". As noted here, usage of Mythology has the issue that it is both legendary, and also can be considered religion. So with that in mind, the goal is to minimise the usage to those things which are "mythology as religion" - gods/deities; and archetypes - types of humans, animals, objects and geographic locations. But not named legendary people, peoples, or locations. And due to WP:OVERLAPCAT, grouping non-real-world creatures using the adjective "Legendary", which allows for the broader grouping. More distinction than this requires the use of a List, due to the Disadvantages of a category. Once this is all done, it should be easier to take a look at other such named categories. I'll copy/paste this to each of the related noms on this page. I separated them by type for easier discussions. - jc37 04:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As an option, could alternatively rename to "Category:Legendary X in mythology". - jc37 04:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I have to say that I'm finding the logic here very difficult to understand. You seem to be arguing that the word "mythological" denotes something distinct from the word "mythology". But the word "mythology" is simply the adjectival form of "mythology", meaning that, by definiton, it simply describes something which belongs to or relates to mythology.
    You say that Mythology has the issue that it is both legendary, and also can be considered religion. I have to say I'm really not seeing the issue with this. I would say that the words "mythological" and "legendary" are relatively similar, and are probably interchangeable in a number of contexts; the main difference, in my view, is that "legendary" tends to denote things which are "closer" to history. For example, no one would describe Erebus as "legendary", while for a figure such as Musaeus of Athens the label seems more appropriate than "mythical". A look at the entries in the OCD that use the word "legendary" would seem to roughly align with this.
    As to Mythology [...] can be considered religion, as well as in some sources, [mythology] is synonymous with religion: can it, and is it? I'm not sure these statements make that much sense. Of course some myths are of greater religious significance than others – some may be closely linked with specific rituals, while others might be simple literary inventions – but this doesn't by any measure mean that mythology is religion. Perhaps what you meant is that Greek mythology (for instance) can be considered an aspect of ancient Greek religion? But I certainly don't see why any of this necessitates avoidance of the word "mythological" in favour of "mythology". – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological powers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nominating on behalf of Jc37 per request; I will let them make a nomination statement. No opinion on the merits. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to X in Y-ian mythology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination of behalf of Jc37 per request; I will let them add a proper rationale. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological stuff to legendary stuff

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination per request of Jc37; I'll let them write an actual rationale. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Myth and legend are different things, despite some people apparently taking 0 time to research the difference. Legends are often based on real events and are simply exaggerated over time, while myths have no evidence of their existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually not true. There are legends which may not be based upon anything at all. And Myths which do have evidence of their existence. And mythology is a grouping of stories, which for some helps comprise religion. And besides, we on Wikipedia should not be the ones to decide what may or may not be real. A story is a story. So limiting use of the word "mythology" to those things which require it. That which doesn't, are then "legendary". - jc37 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the evidence I posted in the other discussion from Britannica proving that legends generally have a factual basis, even if they are exaggerated or fictionalized. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this is too much at once. We need to evaluate these categories one by one. (See examples in the discussion below.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my response to the nominator's reasoning in the "Mythological foo" discussion. I'm unable to understand why they think the word "mythological" must be avoided. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This doesn't make sense. Many articles in these categories are from mythology. Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, etc. are all established terms and we can't redefine them as legends. And if the goal is to change the scope of the categories to exclude articles about mythology, then I don't understand that at all. Mclay1 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological -> legendary royalty

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination per request of Jc37; I'll let them write a proper rationale. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technical definition of a "myth" is a traditional story used to explain something (the origin of the world, the nature of the gods, the purpose of a ritual or taboo, the ancient history of a people, etc.). That the story is part of their mythology doesn't make it untrue; in fact, it's teaching a form of "truth", whether the people or events described are historical or merely allegorical—something that often cannot be determined. There might be a historical basis for the myths, but that's not their essential "truth". P Aculeius (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these categories contain characters from Greek mythology so "mythological" is definitely not the wrong word. Mclay1 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per other arguments above. Mclay1 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While both "legendary" and "mythological" can be ambiguous as to whether a historical basis for someone exists, "mythological" has a technical use in the realm of "mythology" that applies to most or all of the categories here. There's no similar application for "legendary". There are instances where "legendary" is preferable to "mythological", but this isn't one of them. P Aculeius (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using "legendary" and renaming to use "people" instead of pluralizing

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Listing per request of Jc37; I'll let them write a proper nomination. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Myth and legend are not the same thing. No opinion on the "people" thing as I am not sure what the consensus/policy is there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Legendary" is ambiguous ("may not have existed" or "really impressive"?) in a way that "mythological" is not. We may wish to standardise on e.g. "Mythological Anatolians" vs "Mythological people from Anatolia", but that seems less important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this is too much at once. We need to evaluate these categories one by one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my response to the nominator's reasoning in the "Mythological foo" discussion. I'm unable to understand why they think the word "mythological" must be avoided. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The articles in these categories are almost entirely from Greek mythology so the nomination makes no sense. Mclay1 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both substituting "legendary" for "mythological" (strongly), and replacing plurals with "people". The use of "mythological" here is technical: of or relating to myth or mythology, not "fictional, imaginary". "Legendary" is more ambiguous, and better confined to individual persons, where my preference is still to avoid using it to imply that someone did not exist; rather I use it to indicate that the person is the subject of legend (not necessarily occurring in mythology), irrespective of historicity. The change to "people" just makes the titles wordier, and perhaps "fussier" for no reason; animals—aside from mythological beings such as fauns or centaurs—don't need to be distinguished from people. Objects aren't going to be referred to this way. "Locrians" is normally understood to describe people (perhaps including centaurs), not tables, wagons, cabbages, or boulders. There may be individual instances where "people" is helpful, but most of the time it's not. P Aculeius (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hispanophobia and subcats

[edit]
Nominator's rationale The term "Hispanophobia" is vague and often refers to anti-Spanish sentiment specifically or perhaps to racism against all Hispanics/Spanish-speakers, but does not include all Latinos such as Brazilians or non-Spanish speaking Indigenous peoples of Latin America. It is both broader and more specific to say "anti-Hispanic and Latino American/Latino". A lot of the racism in the US is against Latinos anyway and not necessarily against Spaniards. For the main category I suggested "Hispanic and Latin American" rather than "Hispanic and Latino", because Latino is more of a US-centric word and isn't used as heavily in other places like Canada. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino American people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale Rename so that the title is shorter. There's no change in substance. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bulgarian anesthesiologists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Bulgarian physicians.

Also propose merging:

Category:Films about Brazilian military dictatorship

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Films about Brazilian military dictatorship" is not grammatically correct, and the similar category for Chile has "the" in the title.--JPHC2003 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communities developed by Dean Alvord

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, we don't typically categorize by developer. (Somehow my nom never escaped Twinkle 🤣 ) SMasonGarrison 00:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian immunologists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Slovenian physicians. Forgot to list this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_27#Category:Belizean_immunologists. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warner Bros. Animation animated films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The word "animation" can be dropped from the title since the studio is named "Warner Bros. Animation" it specifically would only produce films with animation. RanDom 404 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"