Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 24

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. – Fayenatic London 12:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Manga authors navigational boxes to Category:Manga artists navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: The article for these individuals is Manga artist and all of the other categories related to them are Category:Manga artists or a stem of that. Why should this one be any different just because it lists navigational boxes instead of articles? Link20XX (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment :@Link20XX: That's fine by me. To be honest, that simply was the first title that came to mind. - Xexerss (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 03:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Shaurya Chakra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains Category:Recipients of the Shaurya Chakra, and recipients already contained in the subcat. 1857a (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Only the subcategory should exist. However this needs Shaurya Chakra to be made its main article. As I read it, this is an award at a level that passes the OCAWARD test, so that the right solution would not be listify and delete, but the list in the main article looks as if it needs a lot of links to be made to recipients who have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 03:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who listen to music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Far too broad to have any collaborative value * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - too broad and of no collaborative value Mvbaron (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Star Plus original programming to Category:StarPlus original programming

Nominator's rationale: As the name of the channel is StarPlus, this catagory should be renamed. Shinnosuke15 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, according to the article it is in the process of renaming to Utsav Plus. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only in Europe. I have clarified the article. – Fayenatic London 12:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 04:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who like the Beatles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Music. Note that Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Beatles was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. This category is just barely different enough to avoid a G4 speedy deletion, but has no more collaborative value. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - per WP:USERCATNO: Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes --Mvbaron (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't a reason for speedy deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't everyone? Grutness...wha? 04:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 04:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2021 WAFF Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: {{Category redirect}} only linked to via adjacent {{Navseasoncats}}, with no benefit to navigation, per Category:Navseasoncats year redirected (other).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I suspect the simple answer will be that the tournament did not happen due to the pandemic. That fact may need to be added to the WAFF Championship article, but we do not need more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 04:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2023 Summer Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: {{Category redirect}} only linked to via adjacent {{Navseasoncats}}, with no benefit to navigation, per Category:Navseasoncats year redirected (other).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2022 Summer Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: {{Category redirect}} only linked to via adjacent {{Navseasoncats}}, with no benefit to navigation, per Category:Navseasoncats year redirected (other).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 04:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2021 Women's Cricket World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: {{Category redirect}} only linked to via adjacent {{Navseasoncats}}, with no benefit to navigation, per Category:Navseasoncats year redirected (other).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment + delete IIRC, this was one of a plethora of cricket events postponed due to the pandemic, so it made sense (at the time) to redirect a load of stuff, including categories. No issue with this being deleted - don't know if speedy applies here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: no consensus. ✗plicit 02:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Murder victims to Category:Murdered people - added 10 October
• Propose renaming Category:Murder victims by nationality to Category:Murdered people by nationality
  • Propose renaming Category:Abkhazian murder victims to Category:Murdered Abkhazian people
  • Propose renaming Category:Afghan murder victims to Category:Murdered Afghan people
  • Propose renaming Category:Albanian murder victims to Category:Murdered Albanian people

• • Propose renaming Category:Zimbabwean murder victims to Category:Murdered Zimbabwean people
  • Propose renaming Category:Murder victims from Georgia (country) to Category:Murdered people from Georgia (country)
  • Propose renaming Category:Murder victims from Northern Ireland to Category:Murdered people from Northern Ireland
  • Propose renaming Category:Murder victims from the Ottoman Empire to Category:Murdered people from the Ottoman Empire
  • Propose renaming Category:Murder victims of the Russian Empire to Category:Murdered people of the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: Victims is a loaded word, and these categories can be more neutrally and no less precisely named as Murdered Fooian people. This would make the category scope clear, while avoiding concerns of whether the categories are implying a status of victimhood or something like that. It would also agree better with subtrees Category:Assassinated people by nationality (which isn't "Assassination victims") and Category:Murdered children (not "Child murder victims"). The parent Category:Murder victims and others in that tree should probably be eventually dealt with, but they are not part of this discussion.
This tree was previously CfDed in 2011, but the reason given then was that it was ambiguous, and the proposal ended in no consensus. That is not the rationale for this proposal. Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong agree – This is a sensible proposal. One convenient feature of the current naming format over the suggested change is that typing Foobian murder into HotCat autosuggests Foobian murderers and Foobian murder victims. The suggested format will break this neighborship between murderer categories and murdered categories in autosuggestions, but the advantages listed by Paul_012 far outweigh this minor downside. --Iketsi (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency with other categories. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the category I'm interested in (Category:New Zealand murder victims), the current category the nationality is on the crime not on the nationality victims. This sometimes doesn't matter, but other times, like Trial of Xiao Zhen (where there are three nations involved) it does. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having browsed the entire Category:New Zealand murder victims, I don't see any examples that support your claim, which sounds to me like a misreading of the intended scope, as other cases probably belong in Category:People murdered in New Zealand, Category:New Zealand murderers, or the decade subcats of Category:Murder in New Zealand. Trial of Xiao Zhen is not within the category (I've now added it to Category:2010s murders in New Zealand). --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Paul 012: I WP:BOLDly changed the proposed names, 'Murdered Ancient Macedonian people' and 'Murdered Ancient Roman people' to 'Murdered ancient Macedonian people' (lower case) and 'Murdered ancient Romans', if you don't mind. Avilich (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, generally. I recommend changing (say) 'Murdered Albanian people' to simply 'Murdered Albanians' for conciseness. Avilich (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is part of the category tree for Category:Victims. Any change will break the category tree. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not only is it part of Category:Victims but also of Category:Crime victims and Category:Victims of human rights abuses. Further it is a subcat scheme for Category:Murder victims and there is no scope for changing the subcat scheme unless Category:Murder victims is also changed. These people are categorised as victims anyway via the parent categories so the suggested rename changes nothing. Oculi (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, even after renaming, all of this can still remain part of the Victims tree. But Oculi is right in that Category:Murder victims should be included in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tagged Category:Murder victims now and added it on top of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck my oppose above upon the addition of Category:Murder victims. I shall remain neutral on the matter; I can't offhand think of a situation where it would be inappropriate to describe a murdered person as a victim. (A murdered child is still a victim, whatever the category name.) Oculi (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose. Isn't broke, don't fix. "Murder victim" is how regular normal people talk, including our readership (remember them?) The more we talk like normal people instead of bots that haven't been programmed to understand idioms perfectly yet, the more comfortable our readers can be reading us.

FWIW I'm still having trouble imagining a person who is murdered but is not a victim of murder. Xiao Zhen is not in any murdered person category, since he's the perp. The vic... person of deadness was Hiren Mohini, and he doesn't have an article, but if he did, why wouldn't he be a victim, having been, after all, stabbed to death with a kitchen knife and all. So still waiting on an example. Herostratus (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Not broken" isn't a valid rationale for opposition, and the nomination's case is still valid. Nobody is disputing that murdered people aren't victims, but that wasn't even the point to begin with. Avilich (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dimadick and Oculi. 219.77.112.254 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oculi has withdrawn his vote Avilich (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC). And Dimadick's is the same rationale, which has already been refuted. Avilich (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the South African one as we already have Category:People murdered in South Africa too. I suspect the same is for all of them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge that was proposed by The C of E, who was confusing the location of the crime with the nationality of the victim. That confusion also appears to be behind the opposition of Stuartyeates re Category:New Zealand murder victims; the proposed renaming would avoid this ambiguity. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it will remove ambiguity and misunderstanding in some cases. The whole set will still belong in the "victims" hierarchy, so the opposition "per Dimadick" based on fear of its removal is misplaced. A lot of the sub-categories of Category:Murder victims already use "Murdered people" or "people murdered in X", e.g. within Category:People murdered abroad by nationality. Category:Murder victims by country (not currently nominated) is a concise name for that intermediate category, but its sub-cats use "people murdered in" rather than "murder victims"; perhaps Category:Murdered people by country of death would be clearer for that one, and likewise for Category:Murder victims by city. – Fayenatic London 11:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per rationale of Herostratus. ExRat (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Strong agree with Herostratus _Signed,Pichemist ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I would support "murdered fooyans" because it is conciser than "Fooyan murder victims", which has real value, while victims is already sort of implied by the murder. "Murdered fooyan people" over "Fooyan murder victims", however, is not shorter, just unnecessarily toned down. I'm on this slightly beyond "not broken" (while I agree that it applies): if this proposal is adopted, we would have less clarity without real gain. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: partial merge to Category:Optica (society) for sub-categories only, purge remaining biographies (who for the record are Vadim Backman, Charles K. Kao & Charles Elwood Mendenhall). – Fayenatic London 10:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the Optical Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Being a member of an academic society is almost never a defining characteristic (academies of science and other organizations where membership is strictly invitation-only being an obvious exception). The two subcats can be included in the parent cat (The Optical Society). Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On all the category listees I checked (I went through half of them), being an optics expert was indeed a very defining characteristic, and usually not covered by other categories they are in. If we already have Category:Fellows of the Optical Society and Category:Presidents of the Optical Society, it is standard to have the overarching category as well. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Softlavender being an optics expert is indeed a defining characteristic. That's why we have Category:Optical physicists and Category:Opticians. Being a member of a society just means that you pay their membership fees (being elected fellow is clearly something else). It doesn't even necessarily mean that you're an "optics expert" and, conversely, not all optics experts will be members of this society. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you are saying. However in many cases that I checked the listee had received award(s) from the Society. In most of the cases I checked there was no other indication in the categories that the listee was an optics expert, even though it is usually their most defining characteristic. All of the listees I checked were indeed optics experts. In some of the cases they were also either Fellows or past/current Presidents of the society; I think what needs to happen is a clear-out of the parent category from those articles. I'm still in favor of keeping this category. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I went through every entry in this cat. After removing a few where the articles did not mention (let alone source) the membership, not a single ordinary member remained. Several were Fellows and moved to that cat. Four were honorary members (only 1 named/year, so quite an honor), so I created a new cat for them and moved them there. That left 3 bios: one for a former vice-president (1921), one for a senior member of the board of directors, and one a Nobel laureate who somehow never even got named fellow. I think it is arguable that the first two are not ordinary members and do not belong in the member cat but either in the mother category or in a category for vice presidents/senior board members (if either is deemed noteworthy - I don't think so actually). For the latter (the Nobel laureate), I think it is quite obvious that being a member of a society is far from defining for this person. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete including the Fellows and Honorary members subcategories, per WP:NONDEF. (If the latter subcategories are kept, the parent category should be kept as a container category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: if not deleted, the category should be renamed to Category:Optica (society) members, see simultaneous discussion about the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge subcats to Category:The Optical Society and purge of people, who should be classified as optical physicists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the target that Peterkingiron mentioned is meanwhile called Category:Optica (society). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 back to Category:Deaths on the RMS Titanic‎, from which it was moved without discussion in 2014. "RMS Titanic" is currently used in all categories on this topic, so "RMS" should not be dropped on this one alone. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Victims of the RMS Titanic to Category:RMS Titanic victims

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:RMS Titanic survivors (I wouldn't mind if that category is renamed to match this, but they should be consistent). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Deaths on the RMS Titanic‎ to comply with Category:Deaths on the RMS Lusitania‎ and Category:Deaths on the White Ship‎. Consistency apart, the current title sounds like the Titanic was an aggressor rather than a maritime disaster. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To Category:Deaths on the RMS Titanic. Clearer scope. We don't need to categorize people who were non-lethal casualties. Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename per Dimadick. --Just N. (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Victims of the RMS Titanic" suggests they were killed by the ship as opposed to by its sinking. "Deaths on the RMS Titanic" suggests they died on the ship, not necessarily in the sinking (in fact, many didn't die on the ship but in the sea). However, I would actually prefer Category:Victims of the sinking of the Titanic to match the article Sinking of the Titanic. On a technicality, note that the article is now called Titanic, not RMS Titanic, so any category title using the latter is probably best avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Deaths on the Titanic‎ (without RMS) for consistency with similar categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Deaths on the Titanic‎. This seems sufficiently clear to me: category names cannot cover every conceivable nuance. Oculi (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Deaths on the RMS Titanic‎, currently a redirect. The Lusitania is a sibling and should be used as a template. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Victims of the sinking of the Titanic per Necrothesp. "Deaths on the Titanic" is misleading. WaggersTALK 13:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.