Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24
January 26 >

January 25

[edit]

Category:Integral thought

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To my (admittedly bare) understanding of this remnant of this extremely confusing walled garden (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters, which is what happened to the Integral thought article after moves) this is the same thing as Integral theory, except has an OR aspect of conflating it with several of its inspirations. The subcategory is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Contents that are directly in the nominated category should be checked for accuracy. This is a downmerge, so parents will need to be updated as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Setians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The title and description is confusing, but every item listed is affiliated with or is the Temple of Set. Non-Temple of Set Set affiliations are not included. Category should thus be renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladesh protests (2022–2024)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main article has been deleted for reasons that also negate the purpose of this category. Charles Essie (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the PROD rationale explains:

claims there was a continuous stream of protests in the region from 2022-2024 which is not supported by any WP:RS. Fails WP:V and is complete WP:OR. 2024 July Revolution (Bangladesh) is unrelated to this. Not a single source says there were any such protests in 2022 and 2023, and in mid 2024 a completely unrepated protest took place that has veen merged here to make an imaginary 2 years long protest!
— User:Dilbaggg 18 January 2025

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient deaths

[edit]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, until 700 BC these are mostly single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination.
@Aidan721, LaundryPizza03, and XFalcon2004x: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macedonian Senators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category of unclear utility. The Assembly of North Macedonia is a unicameral body, not a house-and-senate body, according to its article, so there is no Senate of North Macedonia for people to be members of -- instead, there's a usage note here which states that the category is for "Macedonian citizens representing Macedonian Diaspora in Official Government bodies in the North Macedonia, such as National Parliament", which isn't what the word "senator" means, and even the one person who has been filed here is described by his article as an ambassador, not as a "senator", and is already appropriately categorized as a Macedonian diplomat.
So if a category were warranted for whatever that usage note is supposed to mean, it would have to be renamed quite differently than this -- but people can't be categorized as "senators" if they aren't members of any "senate". Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, since anybody can introduce any complete bullshit into it at any time — it's third party sourcing that keeps us on the rails, not "other Wikipedia articles". Show a third party media source independently verifying that North Macedonia has a senate, and that Jordan Plevnes is a member of it, or drop the stick. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See for instance WMC Senator for USA (Arizona) writer Jason Miko [2] (in Macedonian: "СМК го наградува Џејсон Мико со највисокото светско семакедонско признание, почесната титула Македонски Сенатор"). 87.116.178.196 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disease outbreaks in locations of Overseas France

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This whole tree contains only "COVID-19 pandemic in Foo" articles, all of which are already in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Overseas France. If other health disaster / disease outbreak articles get created for these locations, then the deleted categories can be revisisted. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Taha'a

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 biography article. Merge per WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women biomechanists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should repurpose this category to include all biomechanists, not, just women. I don't know if the intersection is defining, but I do know taht we should start this tree with the non-intersecting parent SMasonGarrison 16:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Omiya Ardija players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Mismatch between category name and head article title RB Omiya Ardija, which has caused a big red "Error! Omiya Ardija is a redirect, the category name should match the main article name!!!" message to appear at the top of the category.
Because of a process issue, however, I'm taking this to a full CFR discussion rather than just listing it for speedy: the article was arbitrarily moved to its new title after Christmas by an editor without following the page renaming process, and that editor has since been persistently trying to move articles into the redlinked target category without following the proper renaming process to get the category moved to that name -- the "RB" category has recurred on the redlinked category report at least five or six times in the past month, with two of those times occurring after they were advised to cut it out and follow proper process. (Accordingly, I've temporarily created it as a categoryredirect so that it stops showing up as a redlink, though obviously the redirect and the main category name can just be switched if this goes through.)
So the question is, was the page move warranted and this category should then be moved to match it, or was the page move improper and it should be moved back to its old name instead of moving this category? Either way, the redlinked-category crap needs to stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black LGBTQ people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:People of African descent, and the norm from recent cfds is of African descent SMasonGarrison 15:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cults

[edit]
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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_17#Category:Cults, the lack of a clear definition of cults makes it difficult to classify articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitantly oppose. My rationale is most media works can present themself as being “about” something even if we do not define it. This is the case for films and books. If it says it is about cults it is about cults. We are in no business to define one, but they can. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with you. One example: The Empty Man (film) seems to be clearly and obviously about what is presented as a cult, not a new religious movement (which, for certain works of fiction, would pass for a huge and borderline comedic euphemism/extrapolation if such a merge happened, I suppose).That is the choice of the artists and the sources confirm it. Films about cults include 5 subcats and 223 pages so far and it is a notable subgenre of horror cinema. On a case by case approach some can be moved from one category to the other (and maybe have both categories, if sources/content allow to do so, for example The Wicker Man, maybe), so that I am opposed to merge. I note that the Category:Cults was manually merged as subjective but, precisely, works of art are subjective creations. So MAYBE for documentary films that reasoning applies (and even then, it shouldn't be for us to decide) but not for fiction (and PARAKANYAA had indicated that point in their rationale: "there are some valid subcategories of this (works about cults, anti-cult movement)"). Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 said it better than I could, thanks PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above comments. Cults do not necessarily equal new religious movements, and new religious movements do not necessarily equal cults. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This set of categories is not at all similar to the previous two CFDs you are piggybacking on, and nom's rationale is flimsy. Along the lines of what PARAK wrote, works can be about cults in general without such a category being derogatory to the article subject. Whitewashing Wikipedia of the word 'cult' is neither desirable nor appropriate. WP:NOTCENSORED. BTW, I notified each of the Wikiprojects mentioned for these 4 categories.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it is a real-world issue about if some organization is a cult or not, why not just rename these categories to say "fictional cults"? I feel like it's weird to project "new religious movement" onto some silly horror movie's cult that threatens the protagonist. Works about real-world cults/new religious movements can have their own category. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Cults is not a subset of new religious movements. The few who believe this to be the case are a minority of sociologists who define their field as the study of new religions. Scholars in other fields do not regard them as a subset, and have criticised those sociologists, with some justice, for taking significant sums of money from groups (such as Aum Shinrikyo – after they committed murderous atrocities) and then acting as their paid apologist. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not the minority. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the minority. Most sociologists have better things to do. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2025 (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.

Category:New Acropolis

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only two articles and they already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are plenty of notable New Acropolis topics. We happen to not have articles on any of them. When we do, recreate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:2027 in Asia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are one article each at the lowest level, and some empty categories that will be speedy deleted per C1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2027 in China

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only article is a building that hasn't started construction yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nintendo Switch 2

[edit]
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: procedural close, category already deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated for deletion here one week ago. Besides that, WP:TOOSOON. GSK (talk • edits) 05:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was improperly deleted by JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 if recreated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:George19980825_reported_by_User:GSK_(Result:_). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 25 January 2025 (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.

Category:Wrestlemania participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants Mann Mann (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale On further reflection, this seems to be the best course of action. I still very much do not appreciate this however. Disappointed. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This too. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Rumble participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:February 1861 events in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category tree for a single country and with 3 articles total. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Months from 2027 onward

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too soon, nest of categories containing only a handful of articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_25&oldid=1272632652"