Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 30

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Politicians awarded knighthoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Australian politicians awarded knighthoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:New Zealand politicians awarded knighthoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A trivial intersection of profession and honorific. User:Namiba 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several subcategories, such as Category:Australian politicians awarded knighthoods which has 257 pages. These are knighthoods, not just honours, which is the title of the Parent Category: Category:Awards honoring politicians. Chrisdevelop Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose for Now I don't think this intersection is defining either but, as long as we have the Australian and NZ subcats, this should be kept as a parent. I'd suggest nominating one of those and working up. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Namiba: would you co-nominate the two subcategories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the subcategories.--User:Namiba 17:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And I am not surprisingly supporting deleting all three. It is still a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCTRIVIA. This seems like a trivial intersection. To be sure, many politicians do have knighthoods, but a knighthood category and a politician category work fine. (Especially awkward if, say, someone with a knighthood becomes politician-adjacent... do they qualify if they run for office and lose every election? If they have a ceremonial role like Governor-General? If they work for a political party but as an operative rather than as an elected official?) SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that a search for politicians with knighthoods won't yield instant results, and what about the 257 editors who saw this as valid and added this category to 257 articles? That's a lot of edits to vacate. Politicians with knighthoods is a defining characteristic that shouldn't be diluted under generic "honours". Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a weak argument. Three points:

  A) We have deleted huge, gigantic categories before.

  B) Very commonly, categories are not really populated by 247 separate editors, but rather 1 WikiGnome running around trying to populate a category out of good faith.

  C) Being stuck in one-aspect categories isn't "dilution"; that is the standard of most categories on Wikipedia, and intersections need a good reason.

  The only relevant point you've made is "it's a defining characteristic." Well, maybe. For politicians who parlayed a knighthood into a political career, or were a knight at least most of their career, perhaps. But take Charles Adermann for a random example picked from near the start of the alphabet. He was given his knighthood in 1971, and he retired in 1972. The article doesn't talk about the circumstances of his knighthood at all, but if I had to guess, I strongly suspect he was given the knighthood precisely because he was retiring after a long career. The article barely talks about his life post-retirement, which makes sense. In other words, his knighthood wasn't actually very important at all; it was a nice farewell gift. I strongly suspect that the case of Adermann is the common one, and the case where a knight-politician has these aspects deeply linked is the rare one. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you know for a fact how many of the current 247 entries were generated by "well-intentioned bots"? And does it really matter, if the Category is useful to researchers? If deleted, and then reinstated at some future time, rebuilding all these connections is going to take a lot of work. A knighthood isn't a generic honour the likes of OBE or MBE. Many would be unaware of the criteria that differentiate between Knight Bachelor and Knight Commander, for example, and would assume a knighthood per se is as far as you can rise through the honours system. If, say, a PhD student is researching the Cash for Honours scandal, and comes to Wikipedia as resource, if this category is removed, then trying to find politicians who received knighthoods, corruptly or otherwise, is going to involve them in insignificantly increased layers of searching, that currently, a single click on this Category will avail. Your Adermann example illustrates this very point, in that it highlights the differing reasons for the award of knighthoods. I do not see this Category as causing such harm to Wikipedia that it needs to be removed, speedily or otherwise. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is merely WP:ILIKEIT. Besides, researchers should not use Wikipedia at all, as they have direct access to sources. If anything, they should populate and check Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On "not harming anyone": See WP:HARMLESS, an argument to avoid. Wikipedia inclusion standards are higher than "not harming anything."

  On WikiGnomes: WikiGnomes are not the same as bots (although some use scripts to assist them). See Wikipedia:WikiGnome. And I didn't even say separate ones - one or two diligent WikiGnomes can and do populate far more than 200 entries in a category, which is fine, but not proof of anything if it turns out that the category itself was a bad idea. SnowFire (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2023 (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: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Assassinated Central American politicians by country to Category:Assassinated Central American politicians

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:53, 1 July 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Burial sites of Byzantine families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Burial sites of Bohemian noble families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Burial sites of Bulgarian noble families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, each only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2023 (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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Political slurs to Category:Political pejoratives
• Propose renaming Category:Political slurs for people to Category:Political pejoratives for people
• The category of objects it is supposed to be tracking has since been renamed to Negative campaigning and slurs carries the wrong connotations for many of the terms it currently tracks.
• One of the subcategories has a different name already: Category:Pejorative terms for forms of government
• The guidelines state to use more value neutral language where proper.
• I personally suggest "Political pejorative".

Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the word "pejorative" is more often used in the articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Pejorative" and "slur" are synonyms. I am fine with that. Geysirhead (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. "Slur" carries much too strong a connotation here and the categories fail neutrality as is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because the category is for terms, and pejoratives are terms, whereas slur has a broader meaning that includes prose descriptions as well as specific terms. The current name is not factually wrong, it is just not as specific as it could be. Nurg (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2023 (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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:W.S. Butterfield Theatres to Category:W. S. Butterfield Theatres

Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: Space between initials Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:39, 2 July 2023 (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: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television stations in the Bismarck–Minot market to Category:Television stations in North Dakota

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I counted 4 for Bismarck and 2 for Minot (not counting redirects for retransmitters) and this matches the current usage of the category, which includes several from other cities. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Nigerian film award winners

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING

Typically at CFD we review categories for recipients of a specific award and discuss whether it is defining. In contrast, this category groups 93 loose articles of actors and actress who won any award for acting. There are sibling categories for Italy, the Czech Republic and India, but those are all to group subcategories for specific awards not individual biographies. I don't see a navigational value for this category that you can't get from the Category:Nigerian actors tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I'm the one that added the container cat header to the 3 sibling categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regardless the unusual situation, WP:OCAWARD still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there's no reason for one category grouping winners of any possible award. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:54, 1 July 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:United States Distinguished Marksman

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING

Typically at CFD we review a category for recipients of a specific award and discuss whether it is defining. In contrast, this category groups 126 loose articles of soldiers, people in the firearm industry, or athletes who won any award for marksmanship including those from the US Military, from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and from USA Shooting, the Olympic recognized body for shooting sports. This creates a non-defining grouping that comingles General Pershing, self-defense instructor Massad Ayoob, and Olympic medalist Tommy Pool. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2023 (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.